Latest Breaking News On - Bob stafford - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140819

[applause] >> we'd take you to -- right now, president obama will give an update on the situation in missouri.erguson, i've been following closely. our ongoing operations in iraq, and the situation in ferguson, missouri. with respect to iraq, we continue to see important progress across different parts of our strategy to support iraqi government and combat a threat from the terrorist group isil. first, our military operations are effectively protecting our personnel in iraq. they have successfully pushed back the terrorist's. meanwhile, we have provided arms and assistance to iraqi forces, it -- including the kurdish fighters on the front lines. today, with our support to my -- the iraqi and kurdish forces took a major step forward by recapturing the largest dam in iraq near the city of mosul. it fell under terrorist control earlier month and is vital to our objective of protecting americans in iraq. if that dam was breached to make could have proven catastrophic with floods that would've threatened the lives of thousands of civilians, and endanger our embassy compound in baghdad. iraqi and kurdish leaders were on the ground and performed with courage and determination. this demonstrates that iraqi and kurdish forces are capable of working together in taking the fight to isil. if they continue to do so, they will have a strong support of the united states of america. second, we are working to build an international coalition to address the humanitarian crisis in northern iraq. even as we help thousands of atidis escape the violence mount sinjar, many more are still at risk. we will work with the iraqi government, as well as partners like the united kingdom, canada, france italy, and australia, to , get food and water to people in need and to bring long-term relief to people who have been driven from their homes. third, we will continue to pursue a long-term strategy to turn the tide against isil by working with the iraqi government and with key partners in the region and beyond. we have a new prime minister designate there, haider al-abadi, and the outgoing prime minister maliki agreed to step down. this peaceful transition is a milestone in iraq's political development. but, as i think we are all aware, the work is not yet done. for the next few weeks, dr. abadi needs to complete a broad-based plan for the iraqi government, one that addresses the interests of all iraqis. without that, outsiders will continue to trade upon iraqi -- prey upon iraqis through division. with that new government in be able tois will defend the country from the , and they canil look forward to increased support not just from the united states, but other countries in the region and around the world. let's remember, isil poses a threat to all iraqis and the entire region. they say -- they claim to represent sunni grievances, but they slaughter sunni men, women, and children. they claim to oppose armed forces, but they after -- they claim to oppose foreign forces, but they actively recruit foreign fighters to promote their hateful ideology. the iraqi people need to reject them and push them out of the lands they have occupied, as we are seeing at mosul dam. this will take sometime and there will be challenges ahead, but have no doubt that the united nations will continue to carry out the limited missions that have been authorized. protecting our personnel and facilities both those in iraq , and erbil, and baghdad, and providing humanitarian assistance as we did on mount sinjar. coordinated closely and we will do in the weeks to come. when it comes to the security of our people and our efforts, we need to be united in our result. -- resolve. i also want to address the situation in ferguson, missouri. earlier this afternoon to my spoke with governor nixon as well as senators blunt and claire mccaskill. i also met with attorney general eric holder. the justice department has opened an independent, federal, investigation into the death of michael brown. they're on the ground and along with the fbi, they are devoting substantial resources to that investigation. the attorney general himself will be traveling to ferguson on wednesday to meet with the fbi agents and doj personnel conducting the criminal investigation. and he will receive an update from them on their progress. he will also be meeting with other leaders in the community, whose support is so critical in bringing about peace and calm in ferguson. ronald davis, the director of office of community ordinance policing service or cops is working with those on the ground. and we have been working in ferguson since the day after the shooting to reduce tensions and increase communication. let me close in saying a few words about the tensions there. we have all seen images of law enforcement in the street. it is clear that the vast majority of people are peacefully protesting. what is also clear is a small minority of individuals are not. i understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of michael brown. giving into that anger by looting, carrying guns, or even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir up chaos. it undermines rather than advancing justice. let me also be clear that our constitutional rights to speak freely, assemble, and to her -- report in the press must be vigilantly safeguarded -- and to report in the press must be vigilantly safeguarded. especially in moments like these. there is no excuse for excessive force by the police or any action that denies people the right to protest peacefully. ours is a nation of laws. the citizens who live under them and for those who enforce them. ferguson is a community that is rightly hurting and looking for answers. let me call once again for us to seek some understanding, rather than simply holler at each other. let's seek to heal rather than to wound each other. as americans, we've got to use this moment to seek out our fair share of humanity that has been laid bare by this moment. the potential of a young man, and the sorrows of parents, the frustration of a community, the ideals that we hold as one united american family. i've said this before into many -- i've said this before. in too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. communities too many , young men of color are left behind to be seen as only objects of fear. i am personally committed to changing both perception and reality. and already, we are making significant progress as people of goodwell of all races are goodwill of all races are ready to chip in. but that requires that we build and not tear down. it requires we listen and not just shout. that is how we are going to move forward together. by trying to unite each other and understand each other and not simply divide ourselves from one another. we will have to hold tight to those values in the days ahead. that is how we bring about justice. that is how we bring about peace. with that, i've got a few questions i'm going to take. i will start with jim. >> the incident in ferguson has led to a discussion about whether it is proper to militarize the nation's police forces. i'm wondering if you see that as a factor regarding the police response in ferguson. and also, do you agree with the decision by the governor to send in the national guard? >> well, i think one of the great things about the united states has been our ability to maintain a distinction between our military and domestic law enforcement. that helps preserve our civil liberties. that helps ensure that the military is accountable to civilian direction. and that has to be preserved. after 9/11, i think understandably, a lot of folks saw local communities that were ill-equipped for potential catastrophic terrorist attack. and i think people in congress decided that we got to make sure that we get proper equipment to deal with the threats that historically would not arise in local communities. and some of that has been useful. some law enforcement did not have radios that they could operate effectively in the midst of a disaster. some communities needed to be prepared if, in fact, there was a chemical attack and it was -- they did not have hazmat suits. having said that, think it is probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars to make sure that what they are purchasing is stuff that they actually need. because there is a big difference between our military and local law enforcement, and we don't want the lines blurred. that would be contrary to our traditions. i think there will be some bipartisan interest in reading -- re-examining some of those programs. with regard to the national guard, this is under the charge of the governor. this is not something we initiated at the federal level. i spoke to jay nixon about this. i expressed an interest in making sure that if, in fact, a national guard is used to made -- is used, it is used in a limited and appropriate way. he described this up for role -- the support role that they will be dividing to, -- that that they will be a scrubbing -- they will be providing to local law enforcement and i will , be watching over the next several days. >> how long do you think it will contain isil? >> i have been firm from the start that we are not reintroducing thousands of u.s. troops back on the ground to engage in combat. we are not the iraqi military. we are not even the iraqi air force. i am the commander-in-chief of the united states armed forces. and iraq is going to have to ultimately provide for its own security. on the other hand, we've got a national security interest in making sure our people are protected and making sure that a savage group that seems willing to slaughter people for no rhyme or reason other than the fact that they have not kowtowed to them -- that a group like that needs to be contained, because ultimately, they pose a threat to us. my goal is to make sure, number one, we've got a viable partner. that is why we have so consistently emphasized the need for a government formation process that is inclusive, that is credible, legitimate, and that can appeal to sunnis as well as shiites and kurds. we have made significant progress on that front, but we are not there yet. i told my national security team today and i will say publicly that we want to continue to communicate to politicians of all stripes in iraq -- don't think that because we have engaged in airstrikes to protect our people that now is the time to let the foot off the gas and return to the same kind of dysfunction that has so weakened the country generally. dr. abadi has said the right things. i was impressed with his -- with the conversation i had with him about an inclusive government. but they've got to do this. because the wolf is at the door and in order to be credible with the iraqi people, they will have to put behind some old practices and create a credible united government. when we see a credible iraqi government, we are then in the position to engage in planning not just with the iraqi government, but also the regional actors, the folks be on -- beyond the middle east, so we can draft a kind of joint strategy, joint counterterrorism strategy that i discussed at west point some years ago at the national defense college. our goal is to have partners on the ground. if we have effective partners on the ground, mission creep is much less likely. mission creep happens typically when we start deciding that we are the ones that have to do it all ourselves. and because of the excellence of our military, that can work for a time. we learned that in iraq. but it is not sustainable. it's not lasting. and so i've been very firm about , this precisely because our goal here has to be to be able to build up our structure not just in iraq, but regionally, that can be maintained. and that does not involve us effectively trying to govern or impose our military will in a country that is hostile to us. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't think, steve, at this point i'm prepared to provide a blanket answer to that. a lot of it depends on how effectively the iraqi government comes together. i think you will see, if, in fact, that government process moves rapidly and credibly, that there will be a lot of actors in the region and around the world that are prepared to help and step up assistance, many of whom may have been reticent in the last several years because the perception was, at least, that baghdad was not being inclusive and was going to be self-defeating to put more resources into it. i think you will see a lot of folks step up. suddenly now, iraq will have a variety of partners. and with more folks unified around the effort, it is something that can be accomplished. it also means there is a prospect of sunni tribes who are ts in the areanc isil now controls saying, now we have options. we would rather work with a central government that appears to understand our grievances and is prepared to meet them, rather than to deal with individuals who do not seem to have any values beyond death and destruction. i'm going to take the last question from somebody who after 41 years, i understand has decided to retire. anne compton, everybody here knows, is not only the consummate professional, but is also a pleasure to get to know. i was proud to be able to hug her grandbaby recently. and i suspect that may have something to do with her decision. but i want to say publicly, anne, we're going to miss you and we are very proud of the extraordinary career and work that you have done, and we hope you are not a stranger around here. [applause] anne compton. [applause] i suspect you may get some cake at some point. >> [laughs] let me ask you -- this is an interesting time in your presidency. one of the things you have emphasized in the past few months, the last year or so, is this reach out to my brothers keeper, and to a generation does not feel like it has much. sending the attorney general to ferguson is a place. has anyone asked you to have you considered going your self? is there more you can do not just for ferguson, but for communities that might also feel that kind of tension and see it init rocked -- see it erupt the way it has in ferguson? >> we have seen this around the country. this is not something new. it is always tragic when it involves the death of someone so young. i have to be very careful about not prejudging these events before investigations are completed. because although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the doj works for me. and when they are conducting an investigation, i've got to make sure that i don't look like i'm putting my thumb on the scales one way or the other. it's hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure it's conducted in a way that is transparent, where there is accountability, where people can trust the process, hoping that as a consequence of a fair and just process, you end up with a fair and just outcome. but as i think i think i've said on some past occasions, part of the ongoing challenge of perfecting our union has involved dealing with committees that feel left behind. who, as a consequence of tragic histories, often find themselves isolated, often find themselves without hope, without economic prospects. you have young men of color in many communities who are more likely to end up in jail or in the criminal justice system than they are in a good job during college. -- or in college. part of my job that i think i can do without any potential conflicts is to get at those root causes. now, that's a big project. it's one that we have been trying to carry out now for a couple of centuries. and we've made extraordinary progress, but not enough progress. the idea behind something like "my brother's keeper" is, can we work with cities and communities, and clergy, and parents, and young people themselves all across the country, and school superintendents, businesses, corporations, and can we find models that work that movies john madden on to a better track -- move these young men onto a better track? part of that process is also looking at the criminal justice system to make sure that it is upholding the basic principle of everybody is equal before the law. one of the things that we have looked at during the course of investigating where we can make a difference is there are patterns that start early. young african-american and hispanic boys tend to get suspended from school. at much higher rates than other kids. even when they are in elementary school. they tend to have much more frequent interactions with the criminal justice system at an earlier age. sentencing may be different. how trials are conducted may be different. one of the things that we have done is to include the department of justice in this conversation under the banner of "my brother's keeper" to see where we can start working with local communities to inculcate more trust, more confidence in the criminal justice system. and i want to be clear about this, because sometimes i think there is confusion around these issues. and this dates back for decades. there are young black men that commit crimes. and we can argue about why that happens -- because of the poverty they were born into and lack of opportunity, or school systems that fail them and what have you, but if they commit a crime they need to be prosecuted. because every community has an interest in public safety. if you go into the latino community or the african-american community, some of the folks that are most intent on making sure that criminals are dealt with are the people who have been preyed upon by them. this is not an argument that there is a real crime out there and that -- that there is no real crime out there and that law enforcement does not have a difficult job. they have to be honored and respected for the danger and difficulty of law enforcement. but what is also true is that given the history of this makery, where we can progress in building up more confidence that our justice system is acutely aware of the possibility of disparities and treatment, and that there are safeguards in place to avoid those disparities. where training and assistance is provided to local law enforcement, who may just need more information in order to avoid a potential disparity. all of those things can make a difference. one of the things that i was most proud of in the state legislature way back when i had no gray hair and none of you could pronounce my name, was i had passed legislation requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions. and i passed legislation dealing with racial profiling in illinois. in both cases, we work with local law enforcement and the argument was, you can do a better job as a law enforcement official if you have built up credibility and trust. and there are some basic things that can be done to promote that kind of trust. in some cases, it's just a lack of information. we want to make sure we get that information to law enforcement. there are things that can be done to improve the situation. but short-term, obviously, right now, what we have to do is make sure that the cause of justice and fair administration of the law is being brought to bear in ferguson. in order to do that, we have got to make sure we are able to distinguish between peaceful protesters, who may have some legitimate grievances, and they may be long-standing grievances, and those who are using this tragic death as an excuse to engage in criminal behavior and tossing molotov cocktails, or looting stores. that is a small minority of folks, and they may not even be residents of ferguson. but they are damaging the cause, not advancing it. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next washington journal, a look at how the obama administration has been handling events in the middle east and ferguson, missouri with dan berman. after that, we continue our weeklong discussion of resident lyndon johnson's great society with patricia does stacy harrison. she will talk about the public broadcasting act signed by president johnson in the 1960's. then a discussion with tom scully about the creation of medicare under lbj. as always we will take your phone calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span presents debates on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods, issues spotlight with in-depth looks at veteran health care, student loan debt, campus sexual assault. new perspectives including global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease. and our history tour showing the sights and sounds from america's historic places. find our tv schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. about know what you think the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us at comments@cspan.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> reconstruction of gaza will be a priority once a cease-fire is agreed to between hamas and israel. we will also hear from the israeli ambassador to the united nations. >> these 7000 hundred 34 -- the 7234thpound -- the meeting of the security council is convened. in accordance with the council ames and procedure, i honored to welcome the representative of the secretary-general to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. you, mr. president. we meet today against the backdrop of the region with severe tensions and severe political state in iraq, as well as the recent attacks from serious against lebanese armed forces and internal security forces in the lebanese town. given the security council has already. already been ceased of these very serious violations with the the 15th august of solution 2170 on countering the threats of isil and anf. and the express statement of august 4 on lebanon, i would like to focus my briefing on the situation in israel and palestine with an emphasis on gaza. as we meet the temporary cease-fire is holding. now on the fifth and last day of the extension with israel, israeli and palestinian delegations meeting separately with egyptian authorities in a crucial effort to break the deadlock of violation. -- deadlock of violence and retaliation. i recently traveled to cairo in support of these important talks, and the secretary-general to engage with the parties and stakeholders to end the violence and reach a durable cease-fire. and the hopes of the people in israel for sustainable security rests on those talks. we call on the delegations to live up to the responsibility. by the deadline later today, midnight cairo time, we urge the parties to reach an understanding on the durable cease-fire that also addresses the underlying issues afflicting gaza or make substantial progress towards it. at the very least we hope the cease-fire will be extended and the situation remains quiet. we all shared a relief that no blood is being set up a moment. -- shed at the moment. we also regret it has taken too much time and too many lives to achieve the goals. the third major escalation in gaza in six years is appalling. almost 2000 palestinians have 459 areled, of whom children and 239 are women. it includes more than two thirds civilians. some 10,000 palestinians, roughly a third of them have been children, have been injured. 64 soldiers, two israeli civilians have reportedly been killed. a few dozen israelis have been indirectly injured by rockets or shrapnel. in the face of this devastation and loss of life, the united nations has mobilized every effort, including the personal engagement of the secretary general and working closely with international stakeholders, to end the violence. we did not relent, despite setbacks, because the loss of civilian life was so unbearable. on two occasions we were successful. on 17th july and 26 to july. the temporary cease-fire that currently prevails has provided reprieve for the past eight days and will like to commend the government of egypt for brokering it. it is essential to allow the -- that the guns remain silent to allow civilians to resume the necessities of daily lives and allow for recovery efforts, addressing the many needs of the people in gaza such as urgent repairs of water and electricity networks and finding more viable shelter for those displaced were not able to return to historic -- their homes. mr. president, it remains my conviction that we must not leave gaza in the condition it was in before the latest escalation. otherwise the restrictions will continue to fuel instability under development and conflict. -- instability, underdevelopment, and conflict. i am afraid the next escalation will be just a measure of time. as i talk to general assembly recently from cairo, the basic equation must consist of ending the blockade on gaza and addressing legitimate concert -- security concerns. this has become more urgent given the impressive amount of -- unprecedented amounts of destruction, brought up on the strip and corresponding unprecedented level of the reconstruction needs have not yet been completed at there are -- but there are indications the volume of construction will be about three times needed after the so-called consulate in 2000 -- 2009. approximately 16,800 housing units have been destroyed or severely damaged, affecting 100 thousand palestinians. reconstruction is the main priority, while exports and transfers are crucial to help the economy get back on its feet. construction materials will not -- must be allowed into this effect. their access to gaza must be facilitated in such a way that fulfills israel's security concerns. the united nations stands ready to lend its support in this regard. for years the u.n. has been importing construction materials. this comprises robust measures to monitor the exclusive civilian use of materials entering under the mechanism. this attempt -- system has worked to prevent destruction of materials, allow successful implementation of crucial projects and build trust. reconstruction of the magnitude which is now needed can only be involved with the palestinian authority and private sector in gaza, meaning larger quantities of materials are required to enter gaza. we stand ready to explore with relevant stakeholders how the u.n.'s mechanism can be expanded to monitor the reconstruction program in gaza. mr. president, the engagement of the donor community will be indispensable to help gaza back on its feet. we support today's announcement by norway and egypt to host the conference once a durable cease-fire is in place and adequate access conditions have been established. i am heartened the government of national consensus is resolved to spearhead the construction -- the reconstruction for gaza. as part of assuming its rightful responsibilities as the legitimate government of palestine, the government and corporation with the united nations and other international partners, last week i met with the deputy prime minister in gaza. i discussed with the deputy prime minister and cabinet ministers the way forward. he assured me the government national consensus is committed to addressing the urgent challenge of government, reconstruction and security. as part of bringing gaza back as part of one palestinian government. i reiterate the appeal i made last week and gaza. i call on all to rally behind the government of national consensus and empower it to take charge and affect transformative -- effect the transformative change that gaza so badly needs. right now gaza urgently needs houses, hospitals and schools, not rockets, tunnels in -- and conflict. we expect hamas and all of the factions to act responsibly and -- in this regard and refrain from actions that run counter to the agenda. president, we have been extremely troubled during the escalation by breaches of environment ability. on three occasions there was a direct hit on schools that were being used at the time with full knowledge of the parties hostilities as shelters for gazans live look their home to seek safety. a total of 38 people were killed in those three incidents and 317 were injured. 11 iraqi colleagues were killed in the line of duty. others have been paying the ultimate price for their heroic efforts trying to alleviate suffering for which we honor their memory. on the 29th of july the gaza branch of my own office was hit by a number of projectiles which caused damage to the main building. on three occasions rockets were found in schools vacant at the time. these incidents are intolerable, and they were an example of the disrespect for international law the safeguards u.n. installations and staff and protects civilians. the secretary-general has called for a thorough investigation into the incident. it is not yet clear what kind of cease-fire understanding will emerge from the talks and whether it will be reached by the fast approaching deadline. that said, in any case we believe a sustainable solution must address the issue of governance, reconstruction and security in the context of the return of one legitimate palestinian authority to gaza which will undertake institutional restructuring, including of the security sector and we should also -- should also gradually include the exclusive control of the use of force through the palestinian security forces to border crossings and throughout gaza. none of this will be easy but we see no other way to change it in gaza. as needed and incorporation with other partners, the united nations will support the consensus in the tasks, taking advantage of our presence on the ground. we are ready to take on the role -- provided we are resourced and mandated accordingly and underline the importance of international monetary agreement in support of cease-fire understandings. i trust the council will consider taking whatever action needed in support of a durable cease-fire at the appropriate time. the flareup in gaza has been accompanied by increased tensions and violence in the west bank. since the 23rd of july demonstrations took place across the west bank, including in jerusalem almost on a daily basis, especially around checkpoints and refugee points, often resulting in clashes with israeli security forces. the most significant took place on the 24th of july during the holiest night of ramadan when palestinians, including officials, marched on jerusalem. a total of 17 palestinians were killed, including two children and some 1400 injured. israeli security forces conducted almost 300 search and arrest operation, arresting 620 -- 623 palestinians. 17 israeli security forces were injured. settler attacks resulted in 19 killed and 12 other injures. 12 settlers were injured by palestinians. on august 4, an excavator driven by a palestinian ran over and killed an israeli pedestrian and then turned over a bus, injuring five israelis. a palestinian was shot dead i -- by police on the scene. the same day an unknown motorcyclist shot and killed a idf soldier in jerusalem. mr. president, last but not least, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. the increasingly restless situation in the west bank, together with the gaza crisis should be a bleak warning to all concerned what the future will bring if we do not reverse the negative trend. towards a one state reality which is now on the parties' doorstep. the state of permanent conflict and restlessness must be halted at once. the conflict and occupation that began in 1967 must be ended. the two state solution is the only viable scenario in this regard and we must urgently recall all and support both parties to return to meaningful negotiation talks. thank you. >> i thank mr. surrey for his briefing and now invite the council to continue on the discussion. the meeting is adjourned. >> now we will hear from the israeli ambassador to the united nations. >> ladies, gentlemen, first of all, thank you. i would like to start by saying i agree, for once, with the special envoy of the united nations saying we need more schools and hospitals and gaza than rockets and terror tunnels. ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, you heard the words "disproportionate" used over and over again. the word is used so often and incorrectly i can only assume people do not know what it means. perhaps i can clear up the confusion by defining it. having orionate -- showing a difference that is not fair, reasonable, or expect did. -- expected. now that we understand what it means, i can tell you the only thing that is disproportionate are the accusations being made against israel. have you ever wondered where the u.n. gets its casualty figures from? i will tell you where. from hamas. let me be clear. israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy. but let's be honest about what is going on. peopleurposely puts its in harms way as part of a propaganda war. and yet the u.n. is quoting numbers provided by the same terror group. i have here a page of the hamas combat manual on urban warfare sounding gaza. each and everyone of you will receive it in a second. it specifically calls on terrorists to use civilians as human shields as a combat strategy. hamas evening uses the human shield strategy to eliminate political enemies. it would shoot fox on members and a leg to prevent them from leaving their homes. this way they were able to get rid of their enemies and raise the casualty count. ah members are being murdered by hamas, our good colleague, the palestinian delegate, cannot muster a words of condemnation. i did not hear him say a word of condemnation about what hamas has done in gaza. another example of the way in theh hamas obscures casualty count comes from the ministry of the interior. it publishes ad lines forbidding people from posting pictures, names, or information on terrorist fighters. this allows hamas to claim every terrorist killed was a civilian, and the u.n. seems happy to go along with this exception. u.n. biasmes to the against israel, this is just the tip of the iceberg. is an outspoken critic of israel. this is the understatement of the day. william shotts to leave the gaza inquiry. this makes as much sense as choosing count dracula to lead the blood bank. ladies and gentlemen, the bias goes deeper. just think to yourselves, ok -- media outlets. have you ever seen on media, on footage, not after, but during events? have you ever seen a launch of a missile from gaza taken with so many tv cameras? well, you know, you can miss 100, you can miss 500, you can miss 1000. but missing 3500 missiles launched wrong gaza, never taken once in one camera? that is a surprise. why? because hamas did not allow those pictures to be taken. now you hear more and more stories. people coming out from different outlets. i could go on. the bias goes deeper. on three separate occasions, hamas rockets in schools. is this reasonable? hamas rockets in schools? least one instance, the rockets found were handed back to hamas? is that reasonable? or acceptable? time and again, israel warned of the schools were being used to incitement,sraeli shed be terrorists, and storing large rockets. surprise, surprise, the french reporter who recently left gaza released a video showing how rockets were launched steps from a u.n. building. that is on record. according to newly released figures from the idf, 30 rockets were shot from you and facilities, 248 were shot from schools, and 331 were shot from mosques. u.n. bias gentlemen, and accusations against israel will not help promote a lasting cease-fire. they will not promote the rehabilitation of the gaza strip. they will not he can hamas. it takes courage to stand up and speak the truth. in short supply in this institution. the security council recently condemned isis and boko haram, groups that share the same radical hardline strategy and ideology as hamas. when will this institution find the time also to condemn hamas and designated as a terrorist organization? ladies and gentlemen, hamas has been able to get away with its the support and sponsorship it receives from qatar. wants to appear progressive. he and his family have gone on an international shopping spree, buying the campuses of six american universities, the department store in london, and a football club. as the world's richest country, qatar has shown it controls the it can buy, brad, or bully its way to -- it can buy, bribe, or bully its way to owning anything including be 2022 world cup. has also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to hamas which has enabled en masse to build terror tunnels and purchased thousands of rockets thisiran, instead of using money for schools, hospitals, kindergarten, and everything that would build a society. ladies and gentlemen, the united nations wants to take constructive steps. it must aim its condemnations where it belongs, at hamas and its sponsors. thank you very, very much. thank you. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in prime time, we will visit important sites in the history of these civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from the new york canceror them, including biologist andrew has so, and q&a with congressman charlie wrangle at 8 p.m. eastern. on c-span2, in-depth with reiter and religious scholar reza carson saturday night at 10 p.m., and lawrence goldstone on the competition between the right brothers and glenn curtiss. c-span3 history tv on friday at 8 p.m. eastern -- a look at hollywood's per trail of slavery. saturday night at 8:00, the 200 anniversary of latent or and the burning of washington. and sunday night at 8 p.m., former white house chiefs of staff discuss help residents make decisions. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, or e-mail us at comments@cspan.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. julian castro is sworn in by vice president joe biden. joe donovan who is now the white house budget director. >> all right. state your name -- do solemnly swear. that i will support and defend. the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation for -- or purpose of evasion well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which i am about to enter so help me god. >> congratulations. [applause] >> former vermont senator james jeffords died sunday. well in these senate, he announced he was leaving the -- he gaveparty democrats the majority. here is his farewell speech to his colleagues in 2006. >> even a diehard red sox fan has to give the devil his due. on independence day in 1939, he told the crowd at yankee stadium that he considers himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. i consider myself pretty lucky, too. i was elected to the house of representatives in 1974. that was not the best of the -- best year to be a republican candidate. i was among the freshman class of 92 noon members. harkin, only 17 of us were republicans, and as chuck grassley and i walked down the aisle of the house, he, with crutches, and i with a neck brace, one democrat muttered, "there's two we almost got." time is not just about all of us. with that retirement and that of henry hyde in the house, chuck grassley next year will become the last remaining member of the republican class of 1974, an iron horse in his own right. the silver lining for me in the electoral losses suffered by the republicans was a chance to land senior positions on the agriculture and education subcommittees that would quickly throw me into the thick of things. throughout my career in the house, i focused on those two issues. in 1988, with the retirement of bob stafford, i ran for and won a seat in the united states senate.ñ senator stafford was a tough act to follow. he had held just about every office in the state of vermont and had an enormous impact on the federal policy and educati education, the environment, and elsewhere. i was lucky when i got to the senate that there were openings on both the education and environment committees. and early on i learned what the senate can be at its best. in 1989, congress was in the midst of reauthorizing the clean air act. even though i was a freshman, the door was open for anyone who had the time and interest. as john chafee, george mitchell and the rest of us forged a strong renewal of the clean air act, i realized that these were the moments i enjoyed most. i realized these were the mome moments i enjoyed most when smart and committed people wor worked together to solve tough problems and improve the lot for americans. every year since has provided similar moments, from rebuilding our roads to rewriting our food and drug laws. probably the billin biggest ande most rewarding challenge for me has been in the area of education. from my first day -- first year in the house when we enacted the education of the handicapped a act, to work that continues today on the higher education act, i have tried to do my best to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to reach his or her potential. there is plenty of work left to be done to reach this goal, and nowhere is that more true than in the district of columbia. a decade ago, congress stepped in to try and help the district resolve the problems plaguing its overall budget and its schools in particular. and as chair of the d.c. appropriations subcommittee, i helped lead that effort. the city is to be commended for its record of fiscal responsibility in the years since and i hope the superintendent, the new mayor, the council and school board will be able to make similar progress in improving the city's school system. while vermont has always been home, i have lived in the district of columbia since coming to washington. luckily, i have never lost the ability to be moved by the sight of the capitol dome. its majesty struck me when i first came to washington, and it still does today. under that dome and in the bui buildings around it work thousands of good people. we are all privileged to work with a whole host of people who get too little recognize in addition, from the person reco recording my words to the people who put them in the "congressional record" while we sleep, not always easy tasks in my case. ours, too, is not always an easy task. i know it is hard for the public to understand the reality of life in the congress, but the continual travel, the campaigns, and the unpredictable hours of our jobs can take a toll on our families. i have been blessed with two wonderful children, laura and leonard, here with me today, fies feistaaifies city, funny n incredibly strong wife, liz. they have had to put with a lot over the years. three decades in the blins is ae eye in history. but what a tremendous change in our country we have been throu through. when i came to washington we were only three decades removed from the second world war. my childhood heroes were heroes of that war, and it seemed as thoaferry family had a -- and it seemed as though every family had a family or son or uncle who served and sacrificed in that war. but when i came to washington, an entirely different war was being waged in southeast asia. vietnam has colored much of our thinking since. whether vietnam had too much or too little influence upon the ensuing three decad decades is h larger debate, but we would be better served in world affairs today by being less haughty and more humble. i regret that my departure from congress, like my arrival, bin s our country at war. young and even not-so-young bhernamericans are sacrificing e and limb while the rest of us are making little or no sacrifice. it seems to me that the very least we should do is pay today for the fiscal costs of our policies. instead, we are floating i.o.u i.o.u.'s written on our childr children's future. this year we have no budget, and we are unwilling even to debate most of our basic spending bills before the november election. 30 years from now we could well face the biggest crisis in government since the civil war, if congress and the white house do not adopt a more honest approach to government. the basic exact betwee basic con generations is being broken. f.d.r. was right to borrow heavily to finance world war f i but are we justified doing so today? earlier this month i was privileged to attend the dedication of a monument in virginia commemorating the sacrifice of more than 1,200 men of the vermont brigade during the battle of the wilderness. the tangle thickets of the 1 19th century had given way to mature forests. the individuals are largely forgotten but our collective memory must endure. today we use blocks of granite to remind us of the sacrifices of the civil war. in its immediate afte aftermathu would think no such reminder would have been needed. but 140 years ago, so the story goes, a northern congressman literally waved the bloody shirt before his colleagues to enflame them against the south for alleged misdeeds. true patriotism is the i incredibly bravery of these and those men whose too brief lives ended on that wilderness battlefield. waving the bloody shirt then or today is anything but patriotic. the beautiful capitol dome above us, completed even as the civil war concluded, should serve to inspire us. i am an optimist and have been every day of my life. with lincoln, i hope that the mismystic cords of memory will stretch from every battlefield and patriot grave to the hearts of the living and that we will soon again be touched by the better angels of our nature. mr. president, i wish you and all of my colleagues good luck and godspeed. thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] >> next, utah republican senator mike lee talks about president ronald reagan's economic recovery act. the legacy of the bill passed 30 years ago and reagan's role in transforming the conservative movement. [applause] we are so honored to each of you here today and our c-span audience as well commemorating the largest tax cut in american history on august 13th, 1981. the young americans foundation is committed to ensuring that young americans are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense. thousands of american youth to these principles. we accomplish our mission by providing a central conferences can say seminars, internships. in 1988, young americans foundation stepped forward to save president reagan's western white house. they believed as he did that america is one generation away from extinction. in his farewell address to the nation, he said all change begins at the dinner table. rex lee often discussed various aspects of judicial and constitutional doctrine around the kitchen table from due process to the uses of executive power. ronald reagan also said there's a flickering spark in all of us which if struck at just the right age can sharpen our appetite for knowledge. i think it's safe to say that rex lee helped light that strike for his son, mike. he gave his a unique hands-on experience and understanding of government up close. early on, senator lee developed a deep respect for the constitution and today fights to preserve america's profound documents in the united states states senate. before he entered the united states senate, senator lee received his undergraduate and j.d. at byu. he had two clerkships, one including for the not quite yet u.s. supreme court justice sam alito. he was an assistant u.s. attorney and then went back to the supreme court for a year under sam alito. he spoke at the center immediately after his 2012 election and then returned back in 2012. he really understands the importance of reaching young people with ideas. so it's no surprise he's been before an audience much more than his colleagues. i like what world net daily had to say about him. he was called the gop's renaissance man. >> thank you so much, daniel for that kind introduction. thanks to all of you better being here. it really is an honor to be here at the reagan ranch. aisle also happy to have my wife and daughter with me. jails and john are not with us now. every time i think of james and john, i think of an experience i had a couple years ago when i was driving down the road with both of them. we were going someplace fun. we were listening to a popular song on the radio. it was a song he had heard many times before, but for some reason the words came through more clearly. i understood what the singer was saying. i was horrified. these were threatening words, this was not words that any god-fearing father of three children would listen to. i seized the volume knob and i said, guys, these words are horrible, why are we listening to this? my son, without batting an eye said, dad, it is not bad if you don't think about it. [laughter] all of a sudden, i thought, my son john must be advising the president of the united states. [laughter] there are a lot of things around us, particularly in washington, that are not bad, but only if you do not think about it. but you are here today because you are thinking about it. you're trying to make the world a better place. i am honored to be invited to join you for this occasion. it really is an honor, by the way, to be invited to speak here on this occasion today -- or at anything, on any occasion. for a conservative politican, being invited to speak at the reagan ranch is a little bit like a musician being invited to play a set at sun records or a ballplayer taking the field at fenway park. this is just a great opportunity, by which i am very humbled. as i have been preparing for today's event, i thought many times about exactly where i might have been on this day in 1981, on august 13, 1981. and i have not been able to identify exactly where i was, but i believe my family had just moved to the washington, d.c. area. as danielle mentioned, my dad took a job early in the reagan administration as president reagan's solicitor general. we moved into a quiet suburb of washington, d.c., and it had a different feel to it than my hometown of provo, utah. [laughter] ? r i felt like an outsider in our nation's capitol. 33 years later, i still do. but that was my first real exposure to the reagan administration, was through my dad. serving as the solicitor general under president reagan, my dad's job was to communicate to the supreme court of the united states he official litigating positions of the reagan administration to the court. so, that was his client. the u.s. government was his client. the president of the united states. therefore president reagan was my dad's client. he had to learn how to channel reagan's voice and reagan's message to be supreme court. he enjoyed that job very deeply. right off the bat, i could tell this was going to be an interesting set of circumstances. right off the bat, even as a 10-year-old, i somehow intuitively understood this would be an historic administration. i definitely knew my dad had an interesting job, in part because the solicitor general of the united states has a ceremonial uniform of sorts that he wears while arguing for the supreme court. it is called the morning suit. if you have watched "downton abbey," you might have seen one. it consists of a coat with long tails and some funky striped pants, and as it turns out, as my dad later discovered in court, you're never supposed to wear a button down collar. he was reprimanded by chief justice burger for doing that. it was a treat to go to court and watch them argue in court, starting when i was about 10 years old. one of the main reasons initially was i knew if i expressed interest in going to the court with my dad, i could miss school for a few hours. but in time, i learned much more about the supreme court and what my dad was doing in front of the highest court in our land. when i got there, when i watched him argue these cases on behalf of the reagan administration, i did not always understand everything that was being said. it was in some respects a little bit like attending church in a foreign language. you had to hold very still. in fact the security personnel at the court would come around and tell you to sit up straight if you were slouching. you couldn't talk. you had to pay attention. so, i did. even though i could not understand all the words, i started to understand there is a rhythm to the court. i loved watching my dad argue there and watching him represent these positions, represent president reagan. what i learned most of all in court was perhaps the fact that there is a certain cadence and a certain rhythm to being a good advocates for good government, and that is what he was. but just as there is a familiar cadence among skilled lawyers, so, too, there is a familiar cadence for conservatism itself. no one understood that cadence better or more completely than did president ronald reagan. he had the cadence of confidence. he had the cadence of courage. he had the cadence of compassion. you roll all of these things together with the conservative message, and you have a winner. the next time you place a call to the reagan ranch, i hope you will be placed on hold. there is a reason for that. i ordinarily would not tell someone i hope you get placed on hold when you call a particular number, but really, trust me on this one. you need to get put on hold next time you call the reagan ranch. trust me on this. if you're lucky enough to have that happen to hear the hold message, you will hear that confident cadence of courage in the voice of ronald reagan. it is my hope that today and moving forward, those of us who honor his legacy will not just talk about him, but listen to him, and do our best to learn from and ultimately act like him. that is what we need to do as americans. for all americans - but for conservatives and republicans in particular - the legacy of ronald reagan will always serve as an inspiration. but it should also serve as a great challenge to each of us. it's that part -- reagan's enduring challenge to the movement and the party and the nation he revived -- that i'd like to discuss today. as you know, this is the 33rd anniversary of president reagan's signing of the economic recovery tax act of 1981. it's amazing to think that that happened right here but just over there. i'm giddy almost thinking about it. i wish i could've been there at the time that i should have thought of that, asking my dad if that was one of the perks of being the son of the solicitor general. he did not occur to me at the time. today, conservatives tend to think of that moment as the beginning of reagan's legacy, and of the country's triumphant era which would eventually usher in the longest peacetime recovery in american history, victory in the cold war abroad, and the restoration of the american dream at home. 20 million new jobs. a forty-nine-state landslide. "tear down this wall." "shining city on a hill." cadence and courage. that's the reagan conservatives all remember and revere. but i submit that is not the only reagan conservatives need to study and emulate most today. the obvious achievements following august 1981 provide a showcase of what we can learn from our 40th president. but some of the most important lessons we can take are from reagan's hard and heroic work leading up to his electoral victory in 1980. the four-year stretch between 1976 and 1980 was a time similar to our own. the unemployment rate was coming down, but still too high. the economy was recovering, but not enough to restore broad prosperity. energy dysfunction, rising prices and an unfair tax system were eating up what gains working families did see in their take-home pay. but it wasn't just about statistics. humiliating failures of leadership at home and abroad throughout the previous decade had taken their toll as well. a psychological pall was descending on the country, leaving americans uncharacteristically anxious and pessimistic. when grinding stagflation steered us toward yet another recession, many americans began to wonder if our best days had come and gone. it was in that time, in my view, that reagan did perhaps the most important work of his career. ronald reagan in the late 1970s was a prominent figure, but not a powerful one. he was no longer governor. his primary challenge against a sitting president of his own party had failed, and made him a pariah among a resentful republican establishment in washington. and the conservative movement he led was once again in the political wilderness. the situation was bleak. but, as always, where others saw obstacles, reagan saw opportunities. he saw what too many in washington did not, that a disconnect had opened between the american people and their leaders. president carter's approval rating fell into the 30's, and congress's into the 20's. that seems high by today's figures. [laughter] according to the latest figure i saw congress was hovering right around 9%. i think that makes us less popular in america than fidel castro. [laughter] one of my colleagues said who on earth are those 9%, and why do they approve of us? [laughter] this was not a great time for our country. the republican establishment, timid and unimaginative by nature, hoped the democrats' unpopularity might allow republicans to win a few elections by default. but this status-quo strategy did not interest reagan. it did not interest him at all. reagan wanted to build a new republican party, a new majority coalition, a new conservative movement that would not just cut across party lines, but permanently redraw them. he had a much bigger vision. reagan noticed that, aside from america's political and economic elite, the rest of the country suffered under increasingly liberal policies. they were holding down those who were most in need of economic opportunities. the political, corporate, and media opinion leaders were doing just fine. the people shouldering the brunt of big government's failure were the working men and women of and aspiring to america's middle class. they were the ones whose neighborhoods saw rising crime rates. they were the ones whose communities were threatened by family breakdown. they were the ones whose jobs were hanging by a thread. they were the ones whose children couldn't to go to college, whose sons and brothers came back from vietnam only to be insulted by those they had fought to protect. they were the ones who couldn't afford gas and groceries because of the energy crisis and inflation. unlike the poor, who attracted washington's sympathy, and the rich, who could influence public policy, the mass of americans in the middle were being ignored, slighted, and left behind by the political class in washington. the 19th century economist william graham sumner had a term for the american caught in the middle, "the forgotten man." as sumner put it in his famous essay of the same name - "[the forgotten man] works, he votes, generally he prays, but he always pays, yes, above all, he pays. his name never gets into the newspaper except when he gets married or dies. he is strongly patriotic. he is wanted, whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to be given. all the burdens fall on him, or on her, for the forgotten man is not seldom a woman." it was these familiar friends and neighbors from all races and creeds and regions, people all americans know and most americans are, that ronald reagan believed made our nation good and great and beautiful. they were the ones, reagan understood, conservatism could help the most. indeed, in a national review essay a month after the 1964 election, before his name was ever on a ballot, reagan reminded a defeated conservative movement - "we represent the forgotten american, that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids' schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just 'ain't no such thing as a free lunch.'" to ronald reagan, these americans were never forgotten. from the beginning, he built his politics around a profound respect for the honest, hardworking men and women who made america work. many of these americans, like reagan himself, believed government should stand on the side of the little guy against unfair concentrations of political and economic power. they still believed that. and so did reagan. it's just that by the late 1970s, the democratic party's leadership in washington had gone washington. the new left did not oppose, but had come to enjoy, the unfair privileges of concentrated power. the ruling class in washington not only ignored working families' interests, but openly disparaged their values. now, reagan knew that while middle class americans were disillusioned with washington democrats, they were equally suspicious of washington republicans, with good reason. liberalism may have been liberalism may have been failing, but to many americans in the late 1970s, conservatism was at best a cobwebbed theory. reagan needed a way to transform this anti-liberal majority into a pro-conservative majority. he didn't want to spin them, or play on their fears. he respected them, he wanted actually to persuade them. he knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren't going to cut it. reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant. he rebuilt conservatism with a concrete agenda of innovative reforms to directly help and empower all of the forgotten americans whom liberalism always leaves behind. he advocated marginal tax-rate reduction. this, reagan correctly promised, would allow workers to keep more of their own income, raise wages, and create new jobs. he advocated a strong dollar. this, reagan correctly promised, would help us gain control over the inflation that was gnawing away at middle-class wages, savings, and aspirations. and he advocated an aggressive defense build-up. this, reagain correctly promised, would help us expose and defeat an aggressive, atheistic, and violent empire that threatened the life of every american, and the future of every child. so often, reagan's success is chalked up to his personal attributes. these were not insignificant, and are missed to this day. his charm, his humor, his political and communication skills. he had all those things when he ran for president the first time. but alas, those personal attributes alone were not enough. we must always remember that in 1976, conservatives found a leader for the ages, but they still lost. by 1980, they had forged an agenda for their time, and only then, with an agenda and a messenger for that agenda, did they win. armed with this agenda, reagan not only confronted liberalism head-on, he also connected with those long-forgotten americans by aligning his movement, his party, and his message around them. it's time for us to do it again. the similarities between the late 1970s and today seem to grow by the hour. now, as then, our economy is struggling. the great american middle class is beset with anxiety. stagnant wages don't keep up with the rising cost of living. for too many americans, opportunities seem to be narrowing, and the american dream seems to be slipping out of reach. meanwhile, a chasm of distrust is opening between the american people and their government. both parties are seen as incapable of producing innovative solutions to growing problems, or uninterested in even trying. reagan's "forgotten americans" are once again being left behind. once again, the left has betrayed the trust of the american people. but the right has not won it back. so it seems to me that conservatives today need to do what reagan did in the late 1970s, identify the great challenges holding back america's working families, and propose concrete, innovative solutions to help overcome them. just like reagan did, as conservatives today we need to re-apply our principles to the challenges of the moment. we need to offer the country a new, positive reform agenda that remembers america's forgotten families and puts the federal government back on their side. a real conservative reform agenda has to do more than just cut big government. it has to fix broken government. reagan did just that a generation ago. since then, new challenges have emerged, demanding repair, and conservative principles can once again point us toward exciting, innovative solutions. i find it interesting that most americans feel forgotten, left out of the debate, left behind in their efforts to get ahead, while shouldering the burdens of failed policies, without a voice in what matters most. the ironic part of having a podium and a microphone is that most americans want someone in washington not to speak to them, but to listen to them. "fix it," they say. "turn it around," they demand. "will government ever work for me, or will i always be working for it?" reagan listened to the forgotten and the disillusioned american. can we be our best? i know that we can at least be better. congress can do better. se we can expect more out of our leaders, more out of ourselves. we can fix, cut, and tear down walls that confine our liberty, in any era. we can expect more. we can expect reform. let me give you a few examples. a conservative reform agenda needs to reduce taxes for families. today, marginal tax rates are much lower than they were in august 1981. they are so low that almost half of all households pay no income tax. but most working families are still overtaxed, some by thousands of dollars a year. how? because of the hidden double tax the current system imposes on parents through the payroll tax to fund our senior entitlement programs. many tax-reform plans today ignore this problem, and would actually raise taxes on working parents. for single parents, this might as well be a "keep out" sign on the front door of the middle class. it's an unfair attack on individuals, families, and neighborhoods, forcing them to make decisions based on what government wants instead of what they want. conservative tax reform today needs to fix this unfair parent tax penalty, to level the playing field for the hardworking families raising the next generation of americans. a conservative reform agenda also needs to spur economic growth. new jobs come from new businesses. but all the taxes and regulations government foists on the economy actually hurt newer, smaller businesses and help large, politically connected corporations, which can afford all the lawyers and lobbyists to comply with all the rules. people who fear that the economy is rigged today are right. it is, and government rigs it. today in washington, economic policy is driven by a corrupt alliance of big government and big business conspiring to keep out the new, disruptive competitors that innovate, transform, and create new jobs and growth. true conservative reform should level the playing field for all businesses, small and large, new and old. that's where new jobs, innovation, and growth come from - from main street, not wall street, k street, and pennsylvania avenue. look at our nation's infrastructure. america needs more highways, more bridges, more local transit. but the old federal transportation trust fund is now permanently insolvent because 20% of the money it takes in is skimmed right off the top by special interests, bureaucracy, and inefficiency. real conservative transportation reform could cut out those beltway middle-men. we need to create a 21st-century, open-source transportation network of sustainable, local innovation that empowers america's diversity and ingenuity. another example is our broken higher-education system. today, the exploding costs of and restricted access to college are leaving millions of workers without the skills to succeed in the global economy. millions more are being saddled with more debt than they'll ever be able to repay. washington sees this structural dysfunction, and immediately launches into an argument about, the interest rate on student loans. we shouldn't be arguing about tenths-of-a-percent on $40,000 tuition, we should be fixing the system so college doesn't cost so much in the first place. and we need to increase access to new schools that can accommodate the needs of non-traditional students, like single parents, who can't afford to study full time. a conservative reform agenda must confront a welfare system that isolates the less fortunate. a reformed system would start to bring the poor back into our economy and civil society. real welfare is not about dependency, but mobility, designed to make poverty temporary instead of just tolerable. a conservative reform agenda must include plans for an energy revolution. just look at what's going on in north dakota and texas and elsewhere. let it create all the jobs and opportunities and energy independence it can. let all energy producers compete on a level playing field, new technologies and old, large businesses and small, with equal opportunity for all and cronyist subsidies and special treatment for none. and finally, this approach shows us that we can't just cut obamacare, or even repeal it and go back to the old system we had before. instead, we need to move forward with real healthcare reforms that empower patients and doctors, not big government and big insurance companies. under the radar of the mainstream media and beltway politics, the conservative reform agenda we need is starting to take shape. as you can see, the content is different from reagan's agenda. but the goal is the same, reforming outdated policies to put government back to work for those forgotten americans. growing our economy and strengthening our society. and finally bringing the american dream back into the reach of every american willing to work for it. 33 years ago ronald reagan set over there and signed into law the historic tax bill. it was midmorning, a fairly heavy fog. as he was signing that bill into law, the sun seemed to be cutting through the fog. it was morning again in america. that time approaches us again today. like reagan's, the agenda i am describing is based on something too often missing in our politics today, respect for the american people. as president, ronald reagan understood that the forgotten americans were the people really in charge. and they still are. the people, not billionaires on wall street, are the customers who decided which products and services and businesses would rise and fall. the people, not the activists and academics and celebrities, decide the values that guide our neighborhoods and define our culture. and ronald reagan was okay with that. he celebrated it. his agenda was designed to give ordinary americans even more power to make those decisions. he respected them and trusted them, and thought the government should simply get out of the way. he knew the answer was not to get america to trust washington, it was to get washington to trust america. today, some see it as ironic that as reagan decentralized power to a diverse, divided nation. and as he did so we came back together. but it's not ironic at all. it's the tried-and-true genius of the american way of life that has sustained our exceptional republic for more than two centuries. reagan's agenda was an attempt to empower americans to come together to make our economy more wealthy and our society more rich. reagan knew, and proved to a cynical elite, that freedom doesn't mean you're on your own, it means we're all in this together. and really, that is ronald reagan's enduring challenge to conservatives, and republicans, and all americans, to believe in each other. to trust and respect the courage and industry and wisdom and ingenuity and compassion and hope of our people. a renewed commitment to reform can not only put america on the path to recovery, but reunite our nation after too many years of bitter division, and empower our people after too many years of falling behind. a new generation of problems demands a new agenda of solutions. to answer reagan's challenge, and to once again remember america's forgotten families. ronald reagan signaled the cadence of courage from this spot 33 years ago. it still echoes from these hills. today our duty is to answer the call. we must dare to be better. dare to look ahead past the next election, into the next decade and beyond. dare to make the changes today that will shape the america of the future. i invite each and every one of you to enlist as 21st-century reagan revolutionaries. see beyond the next eight years into the next 80. join me in taking the road less traveled. we are the forgotten americans who have new ideas, start businesses, start families, volunteer as room mothers and little-league coaches, we are the flag raisers, the builders, the workers and the inventors. we are the dreamers and the stewards, we are the shopkeepers by day and the homemakers at days' end. we are the people who james madison, george washington, thomas jefferson, and abraham lincoln, had in mind and ronald reagan did not forget. we are the light emanating from the city on a hill, we are the keepers of the flame, the guardians of liberty. we are the people, the unassuming heroes marching forward in reagan's cadence of confidence in that quiet adventure we still call the american dream. thank you very much. may god bless america. [applause] they asked me if i would be willing to answer questions. i will be happy to do that. you can ask anything you want, law, politics, gardening, fashion, rock music lyrics, i don't know, anything. >> my name is dorothy scott. i would like to know why congress can't at least pass a law that the language of the united states is english? >> it is english. we continue to operate our government proceedings in english. i think one of the many reasons why we need to continue to speak in english and write our laws in english is because ours is a society that operates on the basis of rule of law. our laws consist of words, and in order for them to have meaning we have to be speaking the same language. i do not know why this is a controversial topic. in my opinion, it should not be. >> it is very expensive, and all of my ballots come in five different languages. it costs money. >> it is important to remember that our elections are run on a state and local basis. state and local governments will determine the precise composition of the ballot rather than congress. >> question or suggestion. assuming the republicans get control of the senate, maintain control of the house, you still have a veto to look forward to on anything too strong. can you write legislation that would give enough but still solve the problems? if not you are looking at two more years of spitting cats. >> yes. if any of you did not hear the question, he is asking whether -- if republicans are able to take the majority in the senate, if there is any legislation we could get past into law given the fact that we have a president who will not likely agree with republicans all the time. i think there are a lot of reforms that americans want and that americans need and that president obama would be hard-pressed to veto. there are a lot commonsense solutions that have been there for a long time. i've cited a few examples of things that i think this or any president would be hard-pressed to veto. one that i will mention briefly relates to the way we fund our transportation infrastructure. currently, the federal government collects 18.4 cents per gallon on every gallon of gasoline that americans buy. we take that to washington and we run it through the washington filter and then the people in washington decide on the basis of a very complicated formula how to redistribute those funds back out to the states. nearly all that money is spent by the states. what we need is not more government bureaucracy, what we need is more steel and concrete in the ground. i have a proposal that would reduce the share that is collected, that would be enough for us to maintain the existing interstate system. the difference between 3.7 cents, and 18.4 cents would be collected and spent by states and the best reason to do that is because you achieve about a 20% efficiency gain when you do it that way. this will result in more money going to concrete and steel going into the ground. that in turn relates to more affordable housing that is accessible for most americans, and is conveniently located close to where americans want to live and work. it is the kind of reform that i think any president would be hard-pressed to veto, given that all it is doing is applying basic constitutional conservative principles to an everyday problem. there are countless other examples that we can point to. i do not have any delusions that we will go in there and suddenly reverse everything the president has done. there are a lot of things that can be passed will not survive the veto. that is not recent enough make every effort to get republicans into the majority of the senate because there is a lot of good we can do. it is time to release harry reid with a vote of thanks as the majority leader. [applause] >> i like what you have said all along. i probably will not get a chance to vote for you unless you run for president because i am from maryland. back in my younger days i did quite a bit of work for the party. i am too old now. maryland is a democratic state, always has been, probably always will be. now since i have done that work i keep getting these eight-page things from the republican party, and they were written by people with an iq of maybe 70. the very last page is asking for how much money you're going to donate. these days, the first time i see a congressman submit a bill for term limits, i will start giving money again. [applause] >> fantastic question. even though you cannot vote for me, i can vote for you, and i am happy to do it. one of the things that i'm happy to vote for and that i have cosponsored in the senate is term limits legislation. i am a strong believer in the need for a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of time that anyone can spend in congress. there are lots of different proposals about exactly how many terms somebody ought to be able to spend. anything would be an improvement. as a rule of thumb, i think 12 years in either house on to be enough. but would be two terms for a senator or six terms for a member of the house. and i strongly support that. one of the reasons why i think term limit legislation has become important, the founding fathers thought about imposing term limits and they decided against it. they had good reason to do it and one of the things are built into their equation was that we have term limits and then everybody will be out every two years for reelection anyway. but what did not exist then was the system that exists now. members of congress in both political parties and both houses will sometimes use their seniority as a cudgel to coerce more votes. they will say you are a citizens of a free republic, and you can vote for whoever you want but do not cast that for anyone but me because of the seniority i have. i have too much power for you to get rid of me. therefore your vote for anyone other than me will come at a high-price, you will lose money and power and influence. i think it is offensive any time we attach a price tag to our most sacred of fundamental rights. [applause] >> i just finished my first year at santa barbara, california. some things about politics in general and why i think the real reason people should want to get into politics is so that we can help this country. we are in a very dire situation right now. we need to save this country. i like what you said about how it is our job to turn the anti-liberal majority into a pro-conservative majority. one is tough to talk about his with the elections coming up, will we be able to do that with the party we have now, or will we have to fundamentally change the republican party. expanding into more libertarian conservatism. can we do this as this republican party, or we will have to change? >> great question. i wish you well at uc santa barbara. i wish you well in combating resistance from your professors on your ideology. i think about how to bring down that word politics into its constituent greek roots. it has two roots. poli, meaning many, and ticks which are bloodsucking parasites. [laughter] the best measure for what a party can do in any election cycle has to start with a baseline for what it has done in the past two or three election cycles. they are very big into the idea of where they might come down on every issue. they are very keen on the idea that there might be some limit to how much of each dollar you earn of the federal government can take away and how much the government ought to be able to intrude into your life from washington dc. there is tremendous potential as we invite more and more people to join this cause. for us to have people to have -- who have not voted or have not voted with a party, to know the they have a place with us. it is what reagan did, and that is what we need to do now. >> thank you so much for joining us today. i have two questions for you. firstly about our foreign-policy and the kind of leadership we are seeing in the white house, or lack thereof. specifically regarding russia and ukraine. what kind of action do you see coming out of congress, being endorsed at the white house with regard to economic sanctions? the second question isbo

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140819

fillings. they are in fish, certain large if youry fish, ahi tuna, are eating it. they are dismissed as not being a problem. but if you are in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, which is about 20% of boys, you can have delayed development in attention and memory and learning of about two to five years. so this is something serious. there are some real things associated with the environment that are a real problem. this is organic chemicals that are used. in bottles, all sorts of things. there is the production of them from 1940 to the present, and just exploding, there is no testing of them. you can bet that a lot of them are either carcinogens or there are problems associated with them. so it's not as though there was not a cost by focusing on something that is really a third -- an absurd issue, because we have limited resources. when we are testing and focused on one thing, we are taking our energy away from other things that are more real and more present in our lives. the world health organization, national academy of sciences, european food safety authority, american medical association -- no problems with gmo's. are all of these part of the conspiracy that a person with no scientific training has just suddenly uncovered and is telling all of us about? if that is enough for you, here are other organizations. these are not organizations with some scientific-sounding name. these are real medical and protective organizations. in europe, which is very anti-gmo, in australia, all over the world, the epa which we pay attention to because of global warming or something like that, they say we have not posed our reasonable risk to human health and the environment. i could come up with dozens of these. the australian food safety group have identified no safety concerns for any of the gmo is that we have assessed. is this reasonable, that is something is an extraordinary poison, and all these organizations are just ignoring it, but jeffrey smith knows the truth? here is an editorial in "science magazine," the magazine of the aaas. it just wrote a report about standing up for gmo's. these are nobel laureates. these are people who have extraordinary reputations the president emeritus of the world society. these people have no ax to grind. their careers are made. there not in the pockets of the big several industrial groups that are developing these things. and here's jeffrey smith. there is a picture of him supposedly flying. he is a yogic flyer. he is probably hopping. if you can actually do that, that would be a great demonstration. but advanced meditators. zero formal science. zero medical training. yet he pretends to go around and talk to medical groups so they are listening to him. it's a joke. he runs an anti-gmo cottage industry and believe me they are profiting from this controversy. when it comes to conflict of interest it is not these other , people. it is the group of gmo activists that are benefiting from this. attended maharishi university of management, transcendental meditation. ran for congress under the natural law party. would that yogic flyers improve health, reduce crime, and make the country invincible to foreign attack. this is not science and i am not saying there's anything wrong with transcendental meditation. i think it's really great. people find great value in it. but it is not science. science is not about people. it is a process. it is a whole process. in fact, if people were engaged in this sort of thing, this deceptiveness, they would be drummed out. that is very clear because individuals in science love to argue with one another about evidence. that is what peer-reviewed is all about. i had not read this. i didn't know about jeffrey smith. i looked up "genetic roulette." i looked this up and i read part of it to see what it was. and it sounds very disturbing. the arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. they are ridiculous, ok? you can throw around a lot of words that make it sound like it is very deep and very profound, but i suggest you get the book, buy it. and when you read it, go online to this academic review site and it is to scientists. scientists. and they go through a point by point refutation of these claims with peer-reviewed argument, with other publications, and i think that if jeffrey were scientifically trained, he said they could not make the arguments that he is making, or at least feeling like it was honest. i will show you one example. i could have picked many examples, but i don't want to get into this he said she said because, you actually are -- i am not very familiar with all of the arguments in terms of gmo's although i have educated myself recently about them i really wouldn't care how it comes out. if gmo's were a problem, i am fine with that. they are not. here is an example. i just pulled this out. it takes a lot of energy, even from me. so the claim is this had multiple health problems. this is the corn bacillus. strong statement. no question about that. rats were fed that for 90 days. that is a monsanto study. they showed significant changes in blood cells, kidneys, which might indicate disease. sounds disturbing. follow-up there is a cover-up , going on. that is disturbing as soon there are 90 of these in the book. but actually, if you read through and take a look at the website judge for yourself. ,peer-reviewed analyses which are not cited refute this. the person who did this was at the fringes of the scientific community. very poor quality analysis of this. the european food authority, not a captured organization, i assure you, set up the passport, looked into it, asked for comments and what did they find? , misleading, no scientific basis, no new safety issues, and no revision determining whether the corn was safe. there are 600 studies that look at the safety of gmo. in fact, so much is required that only big business can do gmo's now. it costs about $150 million and takes maybe five years to get something through to where it can be marketed. that has been the effect of all of this. it means that it requires industry. don't bother me. i find the idea of a conspiracy at that magnitude not writable. credible. if it is not credible -- if you want to believe it, then fine. but if you don't think that is what is going on in every medical organization around, then it requires very good evidence to reject the body of evidence that exists and that has caused these organizations safety int there is these products. and that does not exist. secondly, this is a hauntingly similar debate to me about things i am very familiar with. in vitro fertilization. my daughter was the process of in vitro fertilization. they said monsters would be created. they kind of arguments that were made when this first occurred were very similar sounding. it happens with every new technology and it gets shifted and shifted. with gene therapy, even with evolution. listen to some of the anti-evolution arguments and they have some of the same sorts of qualities to them. dna, this is a constituent of every living thing. we ingest dna. we break it into fragments. of course, we have fragments of genetics in our guts. genes that are moved from one organism to another -- of course they are there. are 0.001% of what is there. organization and another -- we share half the genes with cauliflower's because that is what we are. all the life processes are the same. viral bacterial genes. we are exposed to these things all the time. not only our guts, but all around us. in fact, the large kinds of a tinyms, mammals are fraction of the life on this planet. it is mostly bacterial. this is stuff that we are very equipped to deal with. as far as insecticides, almost every vegetable that you eat contains natural insecticides. why is that? because vegetables are in a life-and-death struggle with insects. of course they make insecticides. the problem with insecticides is that you're getting it all over the farmworkers and everything or on the surface of these things. insecticides or something -- i'm wrapping up. so gmo's are the most -- most tested of plants. most do not receive it at all. in terms of arguing any specific thing, it is modifications to the genetics and we get. that is what evolution is all about. this is happening all around us. these are the things that sort of sound interesting if you do not have a biology background, if you are not trained, but they are very standard. it is a little bit like whack-a-mole. you can argue about one thing, but another thing will pop up. the real issue is, is this morally wrong? jeffrey feels in his heart of hearts that it is wrong. many people feel that way. we shouldn't play god and we shouldn't reshape the natural world around us. in fact, i would bet that the radicals, the zealots in the anti-gmo crowd, is not that you're going to have an accident and a bunch of kids get killed by gmo's, because that would actually destroy that industry. it would be the perfect path. it would probably never recover from that. the real fear is, like with other technologies, but actually we will get so used to it, it will be used in a variety of ways that are very beneficial, and within a generation, it will seem natural. like ivf. who would ever argue that ivf is going to create monsters? evenly all caps, who opposed it, said, i was wrong about that. so that is what the big fear is. and if you really wanted to run tests and it was this magnitude of problems associated with these, it would be fraught headline everywhere because i know any number of scientists who would like to get their nobel prizes. is a symbol for us. what does it mean to be human? loss of values. a big slippery slope. of course we are concerned. here's what we did to the wolf. look at this fine creature here, the gray wolf. in a few thousand years this is , what we created. and that was using very low tech tools. it was just natural breeding, very transformed. and now we use high-tech tools. and guess what, we are going to apply them not just to plants and animals are around, because that is what we do technology, what about us? we are already doing selection to avoid cystic fibrosis. if you could act to late -- if you had the capability of altering genetics, there are 60% to 70% of people who say they would enhance the physicality of children if they could with genetic engineering. so this is where this is going. of course there is a lot of angst with it. but the idea that we can stop is absurd. it's not like there is one little technology that is causing all of these weird things. this is happening across a broad technology front. it is not one genie who needed help out of a bottle. it is hundreds everyday. look at the way the internet is going. this is big stuff that is happening and here is what is really going on. years ago.00 said, -- that is really the charge that we have to take for us and our children. how do we deal with these incredibly challenging and difficult technologies that are really altering our sense of who we are and what we are and what life is all about. that is where the situation is heading. [applause] >> i would like to give each speaker an opportunity to rebut one another before we open it up to the audience. i do want to ask one question. we presume that we know what we're talking about. if the two of you could start with a definition of what a gmo is. i would like to know what is different about genetically modified organisms and how long they have been around. jeffrey, i will start with you. >> i refer to it as laboratory techniques that insert genes from other species. rather thatn sexual reproduction. you can mix and match between species. they have taken spider genes and inserted it into goats. they can milk the goats to get spiderweb proteins to make bullet proof vests. they have pigs of cow hides. these are examples of crossing between different species. it is very unclear what they are. there are many things that are considered to be natural plant breeding. they are actually moving around genetics in a wholesale fashion. it is less precise than if you move a few genes around. they have been called genetically modified organisms. there are -- using the techniques of molecular genetics essentially to hone the process so that we can actually do things which are very common. many drugs are created by putting in a gene into a bacterium that then produces that in a purer way than going into an animal and taking insulin by purifying it from the organism. there are all sorts of aspects of medicine where we do the same sort of technology, but it is not labeled as gmo. it is unclear and it is quite nebulous. for example, is a gmo an animal that is consuming gmo produce? does that become genetically modified in some way? would you eat those animals? to me, the slippery slope is when you come in -- >> i will give you a chance to answer. >> you come in and you use this nebulous term and speak of it like it is a thing. it really is not. it is a whole set of properties that are used to create various kind of biology and new strains. many other processes of creating them as well. it uses that in a selective fashion. >> i want to give jeffrey an opportunity to answer the question. we will do some rebuttal here. i want to open up to the audience. let me give you seven or eight minutes. >> perhaps you can yield me your time for a rebuttal? i have all of these notes. he made so many mistakes. first of all, i am not against genetic engineering. i am not against human gene therapy, as long as it's not. -- not inheritable. my line, my boundary is in the food supply. we are affecting everything we and releasing it outdoors. i look with great interest at your presentation. there are many things in here that are talking points of the industry created by a pr firm. i have had the opportunity to spend a year looking at these things with scientists around the world. i take advantage of the fact that i am not a scientist. i asked many scientists. what i hear from one, i run it by other scientists and compare. that is how we produce the book. i can explain why academic review is junk science. i will talk about that in a moment. you said that if you are scared of bt, then you should be concerned about organics. bt toxin as a spray washes off and by degrees. bt toxin in crops is produced at thousands of times higher concentration than it is sprayed on. it does not wash away or biodegrade. it has properties of a known allergen. in fact, there was an understanding and an assumption by the epa that bt toxin was completely safe for humans. the science advisory panel of the epa looking at studies in mice and farm worker studies said that these animals and humans are reacting to the toxin. more study is necessary before you can declare it completely safe. the epa ignored its science advisory panel, which was the most expert allergists and immunologists in the country. they did not do the research that was recommended. you pointed out flood-tolerant rice was gmo. it was created by breeding. you talked about that we eat plants all the time. we eat dna all the time. there are reasons why plant genes do not transfer to gut bacteria. gut bacteria transferred genes all the time, back and forth. plant genes do not transfer any of the bacteria, because they do not have a similarity in the genetic code. most of the genes inserted into gmos are from the bacteria. they typically will not function. the promoters does not work. it does not work. the promoter that is used with gmo works with bacteria. if we get technical, the genes will transfer. all of those natural variables have been removed with gmos. the only time they've ever looked at it, they found gmos in human gut bacteria. even though they said it would never happen. if you look at the assumptions that were used by monsanto back in 1996 when they first introduced large-scale soy and corn, so many of those assumptions have proven to be wrong. this is one of the concerns that i have. a professor said it used to take one class a semester to teach what a gene was. now it takes a full semester. it is so much more complicated than we thought. we have not yet understood the language of dna sufficiently to make manipulations at this level and release it to the entire population. they discovered a new code in the dna recently. they discovered epigenetic effects. they are doing tests on gmos. the most common results are surprising. they exposed double-stranded rna that was exposed to honeybees. they thought it would have no effect. it changed 1100 genes. it completely changed the regulation of the insect. it was not supposed to be affected at all. they are putting out double-stranded rna gmos. there is a clock that goes off when they are doing gmos research. one is the patent. it has a certain life. it may take 50 years to understand the functioning of the dna to reliably and safely manipulate it for the benefit of the environment, but the patent will run out and the return on investment has a time limit. of all the independent scientists that i have talked to and i've have been to 40 countries, they all agreed that whether you are for gmos organs against gmo's, they agreed that it was released long before the science was ready. it is based on economic interests. the process itself, i do not agree that it is a relevant. the process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage. hundreds of thousands of mutations up and down the dna. far more than conventional breeding. the independent scientists looked at monsanto corn after was on the market. you may have an allergic reaction or die from eating corn that was genetically engineered an unlabeled. the process of genetic engineering switched on that dormant gene. monsanto soy had a sevenfold increase in a known allergen. this was not intended. this was the background side effects of the process of genetic engineering. the process that is used to create the soy and corn that we eat. we talked about environmental toxins. one of the characteristics that i did not mention is that it messes up the detoxification system in the body. normally a toxin comes in, enzymes will usher out of the body. all the toxins are amplified. it increases their toxic effect on us. whether it is from what we eat, vaccines, environmental exposure. it can all be amplified. a recent study links roundup sprayed on sugarcane to a huge death rate based on kidney failure because of the way that it amplified the effects of arts -- arsenic. as far as being a conspiracy theorist, i do not have to be a conspiracy theorist. i have quotes from scientists around the world who agreed that genetic engineering is a dangerous and side effects-prone science. the canadian royal society said that gmo's should have unpredicted side effects. i can list the organizations that have a different opinion. i have also talked to some of those organizations that agree with you and i was alarmed at how unscientific their thinking was. i was recently in new zealand having an hour-long interview with food standards in new zealand. they are not credible studies. they are not wanting to use the most up to date means of evaluating what mutations are taking place and what proteins might be produced. their responses as to why are bizarre. sometimes these studies do not reveal a cause. sometimes animal feeding studies do not reveal a problem, but thousands of public studies do reveal a problem. they are not from chemical analysis. i said, why not do an analysis of all the proteins created by gmos? they said, we do not want to collect that data. we would not how to interpret it. they are saying, because we do not have enough data to evaluate, we do not want any more data. it is circular logic. many of these organizations have come under attack by ngo's as being manned by the people. the european food safety authority is the subject of numerous scandals because they are the people who make the decisions on gmos. they are just like the fda. i want to refer to more details. the civic details. i would love the opportunity to respond because there were so many things in there, i spent years interviewing scientists. it was misinterpretation that you presented just now, which is so easy to show that it has no scientific way. academics have spent years looking at my books and then they misquoted it. they lied about what my book said in order to knock it down. i pointed it out in some articles my website. in my book, i say that these are the arguments, the ways that the industry deals with information that they find uncomfortable. they ignore you or they attack you. if it gets to a point where you have evidence that they cannot deny, they cannot win on a scientific basis, that is when they attack you. they have spent a lot of money investigating my past and they came up with the fact that i like to dance, i meditate, and i don't have a scientific background. i have talked to scientists for 18 years. i have had my materials peer-reviewed. that is all they could come up with. they distorted the evidence and they distorted information to assume that i am aligned with people -- my clients etc. this concept of profit motive. i have an mba. i was making far more money in the business world, before dedicating my life to protecting humanity from the dangers of gmo's. if i wanted to make money, i would not be in this business. does anyone know about nonprofits? you are not in it for the money. if you would like to make a donation, talk to me afterwards. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> i do want to open it up to questions. that is part of what we do here. but you did go longer than your initial presentation. let me give you two were three minutes. >> fact is that i'm getting into a lot of detail that is difficult to understand, let's talk about a claim that was made -- i interviewed a whole bunch of scientists and everyone is in agreement that this is premature. that is actually not correct. i talk to everybody and they think you are a wacko. they do not agree with that. when you talk about people in the scientific community, you raise a lot of ire. >> i was not aware of that. >> let's take a simple thing. a simple thing which is the claim that you made that physicians that you spoke to indicated that 100% of patients were basically cured when they stopped eating gmos. >> i did not say cured. i said, got better. >> ok, got better. that is a strong claim. when i deal with the medical community, i find it very difficult to get anything significant about any ailment that i have and get consistent treatment and interaction over a period of time. the medical system is in shambles. i cannot even fathom how you would get that kind of data from a doctor, they would attribute. 5000 patients is a huge medical practice. you are going to have as unitarian effect associated with going off gmos. that is an extraordinary claim. i would like you to answer that, because that, to me, represents the state of this being a poison that is very dramatic. it is in everybody's face. there are a lot of people who are not in the industry lap, who is mentioned, but they are very accepting of gmo's not being a problem. >> can i answer the question? >> the doctor said it is not just gmo's. she does a lot of things. it is still genetic roulette, the gamble of our lives. she does not just prescribed anti-gmo diet. i cannot vouch for how important the gmo's were. i was repeating information from her. i made a bold step in repeating information from doctors. there are so many doctors reporting this and we're starting to collect it. there are some people who do not get better. that is absolutely the case. but it creates leaky gut. it suppresses digestive enzymes. messes up enzymes. etc., etc. it gets in the way of the body's natural healing mechanisms. it becomes part of a practice that is valuable. >> let's open it up to questions from the audience. let me recognize you. i will ask two questions. give charlie a second to get over. let's try to keep the answers brief. can you wait until the microphone is near you? this lady. >> thank you. it was a very interesting presentation. i do believe that diet and lifestyle contributes to our health. eating organic food and red dyes and antibiotic, i am 69 years old. i have spent a lot of time in the scientific community. a lot of it i do not believe. we have been told that agent orange was safe. had nothing to do with chemicals. i am skeptical about the scientific community. my question is, i would like to eliminate gmo's from my diet. i eat organic. what can i do as an individual to help get foods labeled as a non-gmo product? our government seems to be hesitant to allow this labeling. it is probably because of the money behind those manufacturers. what can i do as an individual? >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> i will turn it over to jeffrey because i think he is the expert in this. i think you should not be eating processed foods. that is a fairly limited list of fruits and vegetables that have possible gmo's. eat organic foods, and i think you are in good shape. maybe there are more details. >> organic products are not allowed to use gmo's intentionally. there are products that are labeled non-gmo. the non-gmo project is the uniform standard that is used by 16,000 products and 1500 companies. we have a shopping guide. it lists those products and it is also available on an iphone for free. you can download the app. we also have at risk ingredients. those are derivatives of soy, corn, oils, sugar, alfalfa, papaya, zucchini, no popcorn is gmo yet. there are animals that we do not consider genetically modified, but the fda says that there are unique risks to health for eating milk and meat from animals that are fed gmo's. as far as labeling, there is a unique announcement that some of you are not aware of. there is a ballot initiative in colorado that will be there in november for you to vote for all products that are genetically engineered and sold in colorado to be labeled. already, the industry can start to unleash a torrent of lies and disinformation. they will try to tell you that this will cost you $400 per person per year. there are countries that require labeling. none of them had increased their cost. companies that sell gmos had taken them out and label them. they will say that labeling is bad for farmers and people. they will say it is special interest. this is how they got 51% in california to vote against labeling and 51% in washington voting against labeling. 93% of the population was in favor of gmo-labeling. >> i do not need to step on your toes here, but let's try to be brief. can you wait until the mic gets there? >> i grew gmos, and it is impossible where i am not to grow gmo's. it is impossible. we grow gmo crops in missouri. it is impossible not to grow them, because if we do not use gmo's, they will get pollinated by trucks that go by. we don't want to grow them, but we have no choice. if we don't, it is cross pollinated, we grow it anyway. with all of us farmers growing gmo's across the midwest where crops are grown, where is all this non-gmo's product coming from? >> let me restate the question. the question was, farmers were trying to grow non-gmo crops gmo's in seed form loading into their crops. how do you grow them? >> i think your challenge is a real one. what you are talking about in terms of eliminating gmo's and not as labeling organic food is completely doing the distribution system. any trap that has been moving -- any truck that has been moving around any gmos and goes from one field to another, it is a separate distribution system that is needed. especially when you get into products where their site of origin is mixed together. you have to keep everything separate. it is almost impossible. it is an enormous undertaking to completely do not. >> there is a new booklet that i can tell you about later about how to protect your farm from gmo contamination. this is one of the problems about gmos. they spread. organic may be contaminated. testing is required and there is still 0.9% tolerance or contamination. this is one of the issues about when you plant the gmos and you change the gene pool of the non-gmo species. you also change the relatives. canola can cross pollinate with broccoli and cauliflower. this is one of our concerns from the environmental impact of gmo's. >> i have a question. i've heard of zero tolerance for gmo's. is that something you would subscribe to? how do you handle something like canola oil for example, or one oil? is that considered a gmo? >> it is not possible right now in canola. if the non-gmo project had zero tolerance, no farmer would grow our products. they would lose their premium results. we have to think about what is practical. as far as oils, they do not have the dna or the protein. some people consider them completely safe, even if they are made from genetically engineered soybeans. a recent study came out this year and it showed that the roundup ready soybean oil have high levels of chemicals in it. the non-gmo oil does not. the process of genetic engineering create such massive collateral damage. the compounds that are produced in the crops may be different. there may be some fat-soluble toxins that result in genetic engineering and that ends up being in the oil. there are compositional differences. >> one more question if someone has one. carol? can you wait for the microphone to get to you? >> you mentioned something earlier about tobacco. i am interested in scientific basis for what both of you are saying. please address that tobacco thing. >> the question has to do with jeffrey's reaction to tobacco in science. >> how many people have heard of bovine growth hormone? it is a genetically engineered hormone. the fda says that it does not matter about the bovine growth hormone because 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. it turns out they are referring to a study done by monsanto's friends where they pasteurize the milk longer than normal and they only destroyed 19% of the hormone. they added powdered hormone to the milk and pasteurized it more than normal. they destroyed 90% of the hormone. when the fda reported that 90% of the hormone was destroyed, they never refer to the fact that it was under those conditions. in the book, we are pulling out excerpt from expert reports. monsanto did studies where if you want to design a study to avoid finding problems, here's how you do it. here are the methods. they explain away problems. they do things that no other scientific body had ever done. they find a scientific event and they have completely been unscientific. we show exactly why and we quote the experts in there. >> i would assume that this refers to the idea that the tobacco industry for so long was in such denial about the clear and obvious dangers of tobacco smoke. the same thing happened with mercury and this went on for many decades. there was a lot of resistance and internal effort to try and do that. i can tell you in terms of the fda, i do not know the particular study, but i dealt with the fda when it comes to pharmaceuticals. this is a very conservative, safety-sensitive organization. it can be incredibly frustrating to deal with them. here are a bunch of bureaucrats. if they speed something to market, they may get a little pat on the back. it's not the huge career advancing step for them. if they allow something through that turns out and you see this with recalls in the pharmaceutical industry, it is career ending. the usual attack or feeling about technology is that actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through also in fact, if i look at the pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and what they could bring to bear on the fda and the half of big pharma is far bigger than monsanto. it surprises me that you think the fda will allow junk science to be the basis for regulatory approval. the kind of science is that i have referred to, they look at that stuff and they would have no problem at all saying that it is garbage. not everybody is captured by the monsanto's of the world. >> let me get a question in here. give him a moment for the boom over here. >> i am concerned with the lack of the use of the scientific method to draw your conclusion, mr. smith. you drew some curves showing use of roundup related to diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, autism. i can draw the same curves correlating with use of i-70 on weekends or my ski days over the last few years. the scientific method uses controlled experiments, frequently double-blind experiments, not just anecdotal accounts of somebody saying that i stopped using gmos foods and they got better. what if you give that person a placebo and said, these are gmos foods. would they feel sick? i would like your comment. i know you made a presentation on the dr. oz show. there was an interesting article in the new yorker magazine a year ago. it was called, is the most trusted doctor in america doing more harm than good? the study that you refer to here as on the dr. oz show was publicized widely throughout the world but it was denounced by the european union and rejected in a rare joint statement by the six french national scientific academies. it was ridiculed by scores of scientists. agricultural technology has been under review for decades. no agency in the united states or anywhere else has found evidence that genetically modified foods are metabolized by the body any differently than any other type of food. that was in february 2013. >> what was everybody able to hear? >> i actually spent a lot of time analyzing studies and translating this into english. my book does that. it also says in the beginning that if this were cancer studies and a number of other things, we would have thousands of studies to deal with. we actually have only a handful. it is not true that there are 600 safety studies. the number of animal studies that will qualify or less than -- was less than three dozen. in the book, which has 1100 endnotes and lots of peer review studies, it also says that we do not have the luxury of peer-reviewed studies. we have to be more like epidemiologists. they look at the unpublished studies which are submitted to the fda, and they look at theoretical risks based on biochemistry. i could've bored you with the details of numerous peer-reviewed studies and in a different audience, i will do a medical audience or a scientific audience, where i go into more detail. here, i took the epidemiological approach. all i did was handed over to another medical organization to review. they said that gastrointestinal problems, etc. i wanted to show patterns. i was very clear when i showed the cause. this is not causation. if you are looking at it like an epidemiologist, you have to ask, what is the cause? i have provided information that many scientists and doctors believe are the causes of why support why this graph are so closely aligned. there are hundreds of doctors literally just published or signed a petition saying that it never should have been retracted. it is very important. i am going to that forever. if you want the details, go to our website. we will answer every objection with science. >> what is interesting, it is clear to me that since the effects were so dramatic and the poisonings are so broad, it wouldn't actually take very much to do a human study where you took a small population, suitably controlled, and take them off of gmo's. you show the dramatic effect. i guarantee you that it will be published in the journal of the american medical association. it is not like it will be very hard or take very long, according to these results. why doesn't the anti-gmo industry, and it is kind of an industry, simply fund and do those sorts of studies? it is certainly well within their capabilities. >> you want me to respond? >> i would volunteer you to be a part of the experiment. [laughter] >> i would do it. >> i don't think such a thing would pass through a review board. before you get into human trials, you go into long-term animal feeding studies. the industry does not use animal feeding studies. they last 20, 30 days and they make it impossible to track chronic problems and intergenerational problems. before you get into the human studies, there is usually a deal that starts of animals and goes to humans. we are not there yet. there has not been enough funding available for long-term animal feeding studies. let's figure out with the causation is. >> when you use a drug to try to prove that it is even humans -- gmos material is being consumed quite broadly by the population. all you are talking about is taking a population, and i'm happy to volunteer. anybody who is eating processed foods, virtually 100% of people. all you have to do is set up a control group and change them in a small way. don't just remove the gmo's. you would not have to get him exercising or change their diet and just select them and remove gmos. it is not hard to do. tracking very scrupulously. use an external observer. it would be very easy and you do not have a problem in doing that experiment. >> on my website, you will find a doctor who took 20 seriously ill people off of gmos. he was astounded that the improvement. now he is doing it with 300. it is a different model. doctors are doing those experiments on people all the time. it is already happening. >> i want to take another question. this lady over here. >> i would like to preface my question with the fact that my family and myself eat nearly 100% organic food. my question is, could both of you comment on whether it is economically feasible to continue to feed our planet where the population continues to grow without using gmo's? >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> the most comprehensive study in the world for feeding the hungry planet is called the istaad report. it was signed on by 58 countries. its conclusion, written by more than 400 scienctists, was that the current generation of gmos has nothing to offer fulfilling their goals of eradicating poverty and creating sustainable agriculture. according to concerned scientists, in their report, gmo's do not increase yield. many people realize that the sexy new technologies of gmos is taking money away from other technologies that have been shown to feed the world. in addition, we should be clear that it is not necessarily increase the yield that the experts they will feed the world. we have more food per person than any time in human history. it is access to the food, poverty issues, which are more fundamental. if you look at the nutrition per acre, then sustainable methods actually increase over conventional and gmo. there was a study done that show that sustainable methods of agriculture increased deals by -- yields by an average of 79%. >> my understanding is that that is not true. the one thing i've actually certain of is that if you were to eliminate all gmos crops, you would end up with a substantial increase in pesticide use. levels that would not be desired by most people. i would not like to see that. i am more concerned about pesticides. as far as yields and productivity, my understanding is that they are substantially higher, especially when you're looking at issues like the removal of crops because of various infection agents. this is a process. the green revolution has increased productivity in an enormous way. it has leveled off. there will be problems. we will have to increase acreage in significant ways. i have seen commentary from people that suggested it would be substantial increases. i am not sure. >> in the interest of time, i would like to take three more questions. this gentleman. >> i am bob. i have adhd. this has been very challenging. i do not understand a lot of scientific stuff. i have a short question. in 1955, the fda said tobacco is healthy for you. it is good for you. thank you, fda. we believe you. that is not a question. that is a preface to my statement. [laughter] explain to me what is wrong. this is very basic. we have weeds, we have pests and our yield is not high, i appreciate the drought resistant crops. we want to increase our yield. we sprayed poison toxins, roundup, on our crops and their cotton to kill the weeds and the pesticides. is this correct? then we digest, we directly digest the corn, the cows and the animals digest the products that have been sprayed with these super pesticides. is that going into us or is it not? that's my question. we are digesting the residues of the roundup. we are consuming roundup. your kids are consuming it. is that not true? >> true. there are all sorts of pesticides, including roundup. one of the problems with them increasing is the fact that large amounts of the same crops are being planted without a scattering of other crops. when you get pests, there is a huge feeding ground. there are lots of ways in which modern agriculture has become very reliant on pesticides and huge amounts of fertilizers. on water usage that is unsustainable. there are a lot of problems with this operation. the use of gmo's is part of the solution to that. you can deal with a number of the past issues. i do not think that jeff would deny that if you were to roll back from our agriculture, mechanized production, you would have food issues. it is not just an accident that we have gone from 60% of the population being engaged in farm work to a smaller percent of the population. that is why we do not have global hunger. >> just to respond to this, because of the crops, the weeds become resistant to what farmers use. because of the herbicide-resistant crops, the u.s. uses 537 million pounds more herbicide just because of the gmos. the insecticide-producing crops reduces the amount of right by about 150 million pounds. the amount of pesticides produced in the crops itself is double per acre that which is displaced. we eat that pesticide when we eat the corn. we consume the herbicide and pesticide produced by the corn kernel. the amount produced it has not gone down. >> i want to take one question over here and now we will go way back in the corner. the demographic here is fairly akin to mine. we have an 11-year-old or 12-year-old back here. i will encourage everyone to patronize local restaurants. >> i would like to have a little bit of detail. i am hearing a lot of differences. there is so much going on with regard to getting gmo's and those products labeled. you have the whole organic community. my question is, there has to be huge difference between me going and buying something that is labeled non-gmo and buying something that is organic. you mentioned something about the popcorn not being non-gmo. but you see the verified non-gmo label. i would like some clarification of the differences between labeling of non-gmo. >> the question is the difference between organic and labeled as non-gmo. >> if something is labeled 100% organic, it potentially does not use gmos. if it is 95% organic, it is 95% organic. if it says it is made with organic soybeans or something similar, it has to be 70% organic. there is no required testing in organics. some times there is contamination in the seed or the field. it is possible to buy it without even knowing it that it is contaminated. non-gmo project has testing requirements. they have a 0.9% threshold. sometimes you will see organic and non-gmo projects on the same package. that is the gold standard. organic has other attributes. there are many benefits. the other thing is this. roundup is being sprayed on wheat and barley and rye and tomatoes and 100 different types of fruit and vegetables. it is being absorbed into the crops. if you want to avoid roundup, then buying organic is best. if you see organic and non-gmo products, that is the gold standard. it is tested. >> organic has been around a lot longer than gmo. as far as understanding this, it is virtually impossible. you get on the site, and you read one thing and you think it sounds interesting, and then you read the other information. that makes sense. it is very difficult. there is a whole pattern here of confusion. it becomes very simple to think that gmo's are awful. there was a book called the product is confusion or something like that. it is about how you create complete uncertainty about these things that people do not know what to believe. it is difficult. that is the way it is. not just gmos, but any number of these things. you get into the technical arguments, it's almost impossible. one of the aspects of that is looking at people's credentials and using common sense about what their motivations might be. >> i apologize to those of you who saw hands up. if you have questions, perhaps the gentlemen will tell you after the program. i want to go to this young lady. >> it is hard for me to because i also have adhd. i have one question. are gmo's good or bad? [laughter] >> the question gets to the essence of the question. are gmo's good or bad? >> that cuts to the simplest of things. you might think that is a slanted question. that is my daughter. she is a 10-year-old. i think there is not a problem of gmo's. they are neither good nor bad. it is a process. as i was saying before, you can use genetic modification of organisms to create things that are really horrendous and you can use it to create things are beneficial. we need to think about that. as an issue with the labeling. frankly, before i was thinking about it, and this is a few months ago, i thought it made a lot of sense. why not label these things?but when you start thinking about it as a project, and jeff has said a lot about food i would like to know. i would like to know what food uses pesticides. i would like to know whether that food has been growing where people are paid a living wage. what country it comes from? what you're asking for is an inventory of the entire food system. it would keep track of all the processes involved in producing something that we eat. which to me, you can say, let's label that. it is hard when you start getting into processes to deny someone who wants something else incorporated on a label. the reason the fda does not support that is because food labeling is supposed to be about health and safety. and they feel -- they feel that there is not a health or safety issue associated with the process. there is, in terms of what is created. that is what testing is about. >> that is an excellent question. i think that gmos -- she is good. i think that someday we may be able to manipulate genes individually and know what is going to happen. one gene could produce one protein and that is exactly how works. it is very easy. they realize that genes are networks and it is extremely complicated and it is getting more complex the more they look at it. when they genetically engineere, they mess up the dna pretty substantially right now. they do not even know how to test to see at they had done something wrong to human health because they do not know all the different laws of nature. i would say that. it is certainly possible that this process will become reliably safe. right now, i am confident that the process itself is too fraught with side effects, two -- too new and it was rushed to the market before the science was ready. it may be a significant health problem that we are facing. i'm not even talking about the environmental impact. everything that was sent to you tonight is mentioned in a book online. it is very easy to read and it looks at all of the talking points. it shows what the truth is. i recommend going online. it is open source. you can read it and you will recognize many of the statements that were made tonight. you will see the scientific clarification. it will show that there is a lot of wishful thinking about gmos. a lot of promises have been made that it will feed the world. they have not actually turned out to be true. >> very quick, this idea of talking points. one of the reason that some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that they are actually right. many people are saying these things. they are not using them as talking points. the same arguments are made generally because they are well thought out. i think it is a little disingenuous to say that you have nothing against genetically modified organisms if they were tested enough. i have heard the same thing with environmentalism and other stuff. not you personally, but everything is being done to prevent the kinds of testing that you would require in order to certify that something is safe. it is absolutely impossible to prove that something is safe. you cannot see any damage from it, given the kinds of tests that are done. you cannot make that proof. when field trials are ripped out by activists and when it is made very expensive and difficult to do testing with these things, it sounds good to say, we love it, but it is not ready -- actually, we accept it, but it is not quite ready. that is an endless path and we will never get there. it is a very high ground to take. the reality is that the world is racing forward and we cannot stop. all sorts of things are being introduced that have enormous implications. we do the best we can. wisdom and knowledge have their own cost. >> thank you everyone for being here and being so involved. i did not see anybody nodding off. you were a great audience. i want to thank the speakers for their expertise and passion. it >> former vermont senator james jeffords died monday. 2001,in the senate in senator jeffords announced he was leaving the republican party, and becoming an independent. to caucus with democrats, which gave them 51 votes in the chamber that had split 50-50, and gave democrats the majority. here's senator jeffords' fare his senate to colleagues from 2006. a senator: mr. president, even a die hard red sox fan has to give the devil his due. mr. jeffords: probably if most moving moment in the history of baseball is when long-time new york yankees' first baseman lou garrick walked on the field to accept the tribute of his fans and teammates. on independence day in 1939, he told a crowd at yankee stadium that he considered himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. i consider myself pretty lucky, too. i was elected to the house of representatives in 1974. that was not the best year to be a republican candidate. out of an enormous freshman class of 92 new members, which included chris dodd and tom harkin, only 17 of us were republicans, and as chuck grassley and i walked down the aisle of the house, he, with crutches, and i with a neck brace, one democrat muttered, "there's two we almost got." time is not just about all of us. with that retirement and that of henry hyde in the house, chuck grassley next year will become the last remaining member of the republican class of 1974, an iron horse in his own right. the silver lining for me in the electoral losses suffered by the republicans was a chance to land senior positions on the agriculture and education subcommittees that would quickly throw me into the thick of things. throughout my career in the house, i focused on those two issues. in 1988, with the retirement of bob stafford, i ran for and won a seat in the united states senate.ñ senator stafford was a tough act to follow. he had held just about every office in the state of vermont and had an enormous impact on the federal policy and educati education, the environment, and elsewhere. i was lucky when i got to the senate that there were openings on both the education and environment committees. and early on i learned what the senate can be at its best. in 1989, congress was in the midst of reauthorizing the clean air act. even though i was a freshman, the door was open for anyone who had the time and interest. as john chafee, george mitchell and the rest of us forged a strong renewal of the clean air act, i realized that these were the moments i enjoyed most. i realized these were the mome moments i enjoyed most when smart and committed people wor worked together to solve tough problems and improve the lot for americans. every year since has provided similar moments, from rebuilding our roads to rewriting our food and drug laws. probably the billin biggest ande most rewarding challenge for me has been in the area of education. from my first day -- first year in the house when we enacted the education of the handicapped a act, to work that continues today on the higher education act, i have tried to do my best to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to reach his or her potential. there is plenty of work left to be done to reach this goal, and nowhere is that more true than in the district of columbia. a decade ago, congress stepped in to try and help the district resolve the problems plaguing its overall budget and its schools in particular. and as chair of the d.c. appropriations subcommittee, i helped lead that effort. the city is to be commended for its record of fiscal responsibility in the years since and i hope the superintendent, the new mayor, the council and school board will be able to make similar progress in improving the city's school system. while vermont has always been home, i have lived in the district of columbia since coming to washington. luckily, i have never lost the ability to be moved by the sight of the capitol dome. its majesty struck me when i first came to washington, and it still does today. under that dome and in the bui buildings around it work thousands of good people. we are all privileged to work with a whole host of people who get too little recognize in addition, from the person reco recording my words to the people who put them in the "congressional record" while we sleep, not always easy tasks in my case. ours, too, is not always an easy task. i know it is hard for the public to understand the reality of life in the congress, but the continual travel, the campaigns, and the unpredictable hours of our jobs can take a toll on our families. i have been blessed with two wonderful children, laura and leonard, here with me today, fies feistaaifies city, funny n incredibly strong wife, liz. they have had to put with a lot over the years. three decades in the blins is ae eye in history. but what a tremendous change in our country we have been throu through. when i came to washington we were only three decades removed from the second world war. my childhood heroes were heroes of that war, and it seemed as thoaferry family had a -- and it seemed as though every family had a family or son or uncle who served and sacrificed in that war. but when i came to washington, an entirely different war was being waged in southeast asia. vietnam has colored much of our thinking since. whether vietnam had too much or too little influence upon the ensuing three decad decades is h larger debate, but we would be better served in world affairs today by being less haughty and more humble. i regret that my departure from congress, like my arrival, bin s our country at war. young and even not-so-young bhernamericans are sacrificing e and limb while the rest of us are making little or no sacrifice. it seems to me that the very least we should do is pay today for the fiscal costs of our policies. instead, we are floating i.o.u i.o.u.'s written on our childr children's future. this year we have no budget, and we are unwilling even to debate most of our basic spending bills before the november election. 30 years from now we could well face the biggest crisis in government since the civil war, if congress and the white house do not adopt a more honest approach to government. the basic exact betwee basic con generations is being broken. f.d.r. was right to borrow heavily to finance world war f i but are we justified doing so today? earlier this month i was privileged to attend the dedication of a monument in virginia commemorating the sacrifice of more than 1,200 men of the vermont brigade during the battle of the wilderness. the tangle thickets of the 1 19th century had given way to mature forests. the individuals are largely forgotten but our collective memory must endure. today we use blocks of granite to remind us of the sacrifices of the civil war. in its immediate afte aftermathu would think no such reminder would have been needed. but 140 years ago, so the story goes, a northern congressman literally waved the bloody shirt before his colleagues to enflame them against the south for alleged misdeeds. true patriotism is the i incredibly bravery of these and those men whose too brief lives ended on that wilderness battlefield. waving the bloody shirt then or today is anything but patriotic. the beautiful capitol dome above us, completed even as the civil war concluded, should serve to inspire us. i am an optimist and have been every day of my life. with lincoln, i hope that the mismystic cords of memory will stretch from every battlefield and patriot grave to the hearts of the living and that we will soon again be touched by the better angels of our nature. mr. president, i wish you and all of my colleagues good luck and godspeed. thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] >> senate majority leader reid issued a statement on the death saying: jeffords jim jeffords was 80. are some of the highlight for this weekend. timey on c-span in prime we'll visit important sigh thens the history of the civil right movement. at 8:00 highlight from this year's new york ideas forum, including cancer andrew hessel. on sunday, q and awe with charlie wrangle. indepthight at 8:00, aslan.th reza and sunday night at 11:00 p.m., on thee gold stone competition between the write blowerses and glen curtis to be name in mannednt flight. look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery, saturday night at of0, the 200th anniversary bladensburg. former chiefs of staff discussion how presidents make decisions. find our schedule at c-span.org know what you think about the programs you're watching. call or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us twitter. >> a couple of live events from heritage foundation to tell you about. at noon eastern a look at the of philanthropy in defense funding. c-span.ive today on and later in the day, a conversation on u.s. rests with asia, focusing on japan and south korea. nationalrector of intelligence dennis player and south korea's ambassador to the u.s. will take part in the discussion. live coverage at 2:00 eastern, also on c-span. mideast envoyons robert serry told the security that reconstruction of gaza will be a priority wants a is agreed to.les we'll also hear from the israeli nationsor to the united >> these 7000 hundred 34 -- the 7234thpound -- the meeting of the security council is convened. in accordance with the council ames and procedure, i honored to welcome the representative of the secretary-general to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. you, mr. president. we meet today against the backdrop of the region with severe tensions and severe political state in iraq, as well as the recent attacks from serious against lebanese armed forces and internal security forces in the lebanese town. given the security council has already. already been ceased of these very serious violations with the the 15th august of solution 2170 on countering the threats of isil and anf. and the express statement of august 4 on lebanon, i would like to focus my briefing on the situation in israel and palestine with an emphasis on gaza. as we meet the temporary cease-fire is holding. now on the fifth and last day of the extension with israel, israeli and palestinian delegations meeting separately with egyptian authorities in a crucial effort to break the deadlock of violation. -- deadlock of violence and retaliation. i recently traveled to cairo in support of these important talks, and the secretary-general to engage with the parties and stakeholders to end the violence and reach a durable cease-fire. and the hopes of the people in israel for sustainable security rests on those talks. we call on the delegations to live up to the responsibility. by the deadline later today, midnight cairo time, we urge the parties to reach an understanding on the durable cease-fire that also addresses the underlying issues afflicting gaza or make substantial progress towards it. at the very least we hope the cease-fire will be extended and the situation remains quiet. we all shared a relief that no blood is being set up a moment. -- shed at the moment. we also regret it has taken too much time and too many lives to achieve the goals. the third major escalation in gaza in six years is appalling. almost 2000 palestinians have 459 areled, of whom children and 239 are women. it includes more than two thirds civilians. some 10,000 palestinians, roughly a third of them have been children, have been injured. 64 soldiers, two israeli civilians have reportedly been killed. a few dozen israelis have been indirectly injured by rockets or shrapnel. in the face of this devastation and loss of life, the united nations has mobilized every effort, including the personal engagement of the secretary general and working closely with international stakeholders, to end the violence. we did not relent, despite setbacks, because the loss of civilian life was so unbearable. on two occasions we were successful. on 17th july and 26 to july. the temporary cease-fire that currently prevails has provided reprieve for the past eight days and will like to commend the government of egypt for brokering it. it is essential to allow the -- that the guns remain silent to allow civilians to resume the necessities of daily lives and allow for recovery efforts, addressing the many needs of the people in gaza such as urgent repairs of water and electricity networks and finding more viable shelter for those displaced were not able to return to historic -- their homes. mr. president, it remains my conviction that we must not leave gaza in the condition it was in before the latest escalation. otherwise the restrictions will continue to fuel instability under development and conflict. -- instability, underdevelopment, and conflict. i am afraid the next escalation will be just a measure of time. as i talk to general assembly recently from cairo, the basic equation must consist of ending the blockade on gaza and addressing legitimate concert -- security concerns. this has become more urgent given the impressive amount of -- unprecedented amounts of destruction, brought up on the strip and corresponding unprecedented level of the reconstruction needs have not yet been completed at there are -- but there are indications the volume of construction will be about three times needed after the so-called consulate in 2000 -- 2009. approximately 16,800 housing units have been destroyed or severely damaged, affecting 100 thousand palestinians. reconstruction is the main priority, while exports and transfers are crucial to help the economy get back on its feet. construction materials will not -- must be allowed into this effect. their access to gaza must be facilitated in such a way that fulfills israel's security concerns. the united nations stands ready to lend its support in this regard. for years the u.n. has been importing construction materials. this comprises robust measures to monitor the exclusive civilian use of materials entering under the mechanism. this attempt -- system has worked to prevent destruction of materials, allow successful implementation of crucial projects and build trust. reconstruction of the magnitude which is now needed can only be involved with the palestinian authority and private sector in gaza, meaning larger quantities of materials are required to enter gaza. we stand ready to explore with relevant stakeholders how the u.n.'s mechanism can be expanded to monitor the reconstruction program in gaza. mr. president, the engagement of the donor community will be indispensable to help gaza back on its feet. we support today's announcement by norway and egypt to host the conference once a durable cease-fire is in place and adequate access conditions have been established. i am heartened the government of national consensus is resolved to spearhead the construction -- the reconstruction for gaza. as part of assuming its rightful responsibilities as the legitimate government of palestine, the government and corporation with the united nations and other international partners, last week i met with the deputy prime minister in gaza. i discussed with the deputy prime minister and cabinet ministers the way forward. he assured me the government national consensus is committed to addressing the urgent challenge of government, reconstruction and security. as part of bringing gaza back as part of one palestinian government. i reiterate the appeal i made last week and gaza. i call on all to rally behind the government of national consensus and empower it to take charge and affect transformative -- effect the transformative change that gaza so badly needs. right now gaza urgently needs houses, hospitals and schools, not rockets, tunnels in -- and conflict. we expect hamas and all of the factions to act responsibly and -- in this regard and refrain from actions that run counter to the agenda. president, we have been extremely troubled during the escalation by breaches of environment ability. on three occasions there was a direct hit on schools that were being used at the time with full knowledge of the parties hostilities as shelters for gazans live look their home to seek safety. a total of 38 people were killed in those three incidents and 317 were injured. 11 iraqi colleagues were killed in the line of duty. others have been paying the ultimate price for their heroic efforts trying to alleviate suffering for which we honor their memory. on the 29th of july the gaza branch of my own office was hit by a number of projectiles which caused damage to the main building. on three occasions rockets were found in schools vacant at the time. these incidents are intolerable, and they were an example of the disrespect for international law the safeguards u.n. installations and staff and protects civilians. the secretary-general has called for a thorough investigation into the incident. it is not yet clear what kind of cease-fire understanding will emerge from the talks and whether it will be reached by the fast approaching deadline. that said, in any case we believe a sustainable solution must address the issue of governance, reconstruction and security in the context of the return of one legitimate palestinian authority to gaza which will undertake institutional restructuring, including of the security sector and we should also -- should also gradually include the exclusive control of the use of force through the palestinian security forces to border crossings and throughout gaza. none of this will be easy but we see no other way to change it in gaza. as needed and incorporation with other partners, the united nations will support the consensus in the tasks, taking advantage of our presence on the ground. we are ready to take on the role -- provided we are resourced and mandated accordingly and underline the importance of international monetary agreement in support of cease-fire understandings. i trust the council will consider taking whatever action needed in support of a durable cease-fire at the appropriate time. the flareup in gaza has been accompanied by increased tensions and violence in the west bank. since the 23rd of july demonstrations took place across the west bank, including in jerusalem almost on a daily basis, especially around checkpoints and refugee points, often resulting in clashes with israeli security forces. the most significant took place on the 24th of july during the holiest night of ramadan when palestinians, including officials, marched on jerusalem. a total of 17 palestinians were killed, including two children and some 1400 injured. israeli security forces conducted almost 300 search and arrest operation, arresting 620 -- 623 palestinians. 17 israeli security forces were injured. settler attacks resulted in 19 killed and 12 other injures. 12 settlers were injured by palestinians. on august 4, an excavator driven by a palestinian ran over and killed an israeli pedestrian and then turned over a bus, injuring five israelis. a palestinian was shot dead i -- by police on the scene. the same day an unknown motorcyclist shot and killed a idf soldier in jerusalem. mr. president, last but not least, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. the increasingly restless situation in the west bank, together with the gaza crisis should be a bleak warning to all concerned what the future will bring if we do not reverse the negative trend. towards a one state reality which is now on the parties' doorstep. the state of permanent conflict and restlessness must be halted at once. the conflict and occupation that began in 1967 must be ended. the two state solution is the only viable scenario in this regard and we must urgently recall all and support both parties to return to meaningful negotiation talks. thank you. >> i thank mr. surrey for his briefing and now invite the council to continue on the discussion. the meeting is adjourned. >> now we will hear fro >> now we'll hear from the israeli ambassador to the united nations. >> ladies, gentlemen, first of all, thank you. i would like to start by saying i agree, for once, with the special envoy of the united nations saying we need more schools and hospitals and gaza than rockets and terror tunnels. ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, you heard the words "disproportionate" used over and over again. the word is used so often and incorrectly i can only assume people do not know what it means. perhaps i can clear up the confusion by defining it. having orionate -- showing a difference that is not fair, reasonable, or expect did. -- expected. now that we understand what it means, i can tell you the only thing that is disproportionate are the accusations being made against israel. have you ever wondered where the u.n. gets its casualty figures from? i will tell you where. from hamas. let me be clear. israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy. but let's be honest about what is going on. peopleurposely puts its in harms way as part of a propaganda war. and yet the u.n. is quoting numbers provided by the same terror group. i have here a page of the hamas combat manual on urban warfare sounding gaza. each and everyone of you will receive it in a second. it specifically calls on terrorists to use civilians as human shields as a combat strategy. hamas evening uses the human shield strategy to eliminate political enemies. it would shoot fox on members and a leg to prevent them from leaving their homes. this way they were able to get rid of their enemies and raise the casualty count. ah members are being murdered by hamas, our good colleague, the palestinian delegate, cannot muster a words of condemnation. i did not hear him say a word of condemnation about what hamas has done in gaza. another example of the way in theh hamas obscures casualty count comes from the ministry of the interior. it publishes ad lines forbidding people from posting pictures, names, or information on terrorist fighters. this allows hamas to claim every terrorist killed was a civilian, and the u.n. seems happy to go along with this exception. u.n. biasmes to the against israel, this is just the tip of the iceberg. is an outspoken critic of israel. this is the understatement of the day. william shotts to leave the gaza inquiry. this makes as much sense as choosing count dracula to lead the blood bank. ladies and gentlemen, the bias goes deeper. just think to yourselves, ok -- media outlets. have you ever seen on media, on footage, not after, but during events? have you ever seen a launch of a missile from gaza taken with so many tv cameras? well, you know, you can miss 100, you can miss 500, you can miss 1000. but missing 3500 missiles launched wrong gaza, never taken once in one camera? that is a surprise. why? because hamas did not allow those pictures to be taken. now you hear more and more stories. people coming out from different outlets. i could go on. the bias goes deeper. on three separate occasions, hamas rockets in schools. is this reasonable? hamas rockets in schools? least one instance, the rockets found were handed back to hamas? is that reasonable? or acceptable? time and again, israel warned of the schools were being used to incitement,sraeli shed be terrorists, and storing large rockets. surprise, surprise, the french reporter who recently left gaza released a video showing how rockets were launched steps from a u.n. building. that is on record. according to newly released figures from the idf, 30 rockets were shot from you and facilities, 248 were shot from schools, and 331 were shot from mosques. u.n. bias gentlemen, and accusations against israel will not help promote a lasting cease-fire. they will not promote the rehabilitation of the gaza strip. they will not he can hamas. it takes courage to stand up and speak the truth. in short supply in this institution. the security council recently condemned isis and boko haram, groups that share the same radical hardline strategy and ideology as hamas. when will this institution find the time also to condemn hamas and designated as a terrorist organization? ladies and gentlemen, hamas has been able to get away with its the support and sponsorship it receives from qatar. wants to appear progressive. he and his family have gone on an international shopping spree, buying the campuses of six american universities, the department store in london, and a football club. as the world's richest country, qatar has shown it controls the it can buy, brad, or bully its way to -- it can buy, bribe, or bully its way to owning anything including be 2022 world cup. has also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to hamas which has enabled en masse to build terror tunnels and purchased thousands of rockets thisiran, instead of using money for schools, hospitals, kindergarten, and everything that would build a society. ladies and gentlemen, the united nations wants to take constructive steps. it must aim its condemnations where it belongs, at hamas and its sponsors. thank you very, very much. >> on the next "washington journal," a look at how the obama administration has been events in the middle east and the situation in with dan missouri berman. after that we continue our discussion on president lyndon johnson's great society, with patricia harrison. she's president and c.e.o. of the corporation for public broadcasting. and we'll talk about the public broadcasting act that was signed johnson in the 1960's. we'll also hear from former anders for medicare medicaid services administrator tom scully about the create of medicare under l.b.j. at 7:00 a.m.g eastern on c-span. house democratic caucus chair wassier becerra held a town hall with constituent this is month on the economy, immigrant children on the border, and u.s. foreign policy. was held in northeast los angeles. it's 90 minutes. thank you to so many much you who i've seen in town hall after that we've done. thank you to those who participated in the town hall i do from wowed when you can't be home. i love it that you participate. it.et's keep doing let me run through a little bit of the format again for those you iy be new and most of see have been at my town halls in the past. try to keep it to about an hour, but we'll go a little over. quickive you a presentation of what's going on in d.c., what's pending in theington, but then reserve rest of the time for you to ask questions, because we typically get more questions than we have to answer, and so it's not me picking favorites or in terms ask theets to questions. we've asked you to fill out your name on a piece of paper, namesly i'll select the and we'll just go through as many as we with can. ask that everyone confine themselves to asking a quick question or making a quick comment. and i've told my staff to please try to keep me on the clock to give as concise an answer as i can. often times it's tough because i to ask reallytend good questions, and sometimes i have to dig a little deeper so theget the meet of response. okay. let me thank the center for the here for legalling us use the facility. lit give them a round of applause. michael, i know he was in the back, we want to say thank you and brian martinez the director of vents as well here at the center. introduce my staff. i'd like to make sure you know whens on my staff because i'm not here i want you to know directly.nnect with my outreach supervisor is gail she's right here raising her hands. my district director, the boss angeles, liz saldivar. i have two field deputies that district,entire 700,000 people, umi, raise your hand, irvin. right over here. the two field deputies. press secretary. my casework supervisor and you speakoh many of to when you have an issue that you need to have resolved, son.el kneeing -- neilson. garcia is my senior caseworker. now i have two of my d.c. staffers who are here this week, having votes.not this is the best time to have my d.c. staff connect and my districtith office staff, otherwise it's too gull to get them to leave and here.ver my chief of staff who is new to the position about less than two months, but who has been with me mccluskey.rs is sean shun is my new chief of staff. he is also been my policy director for quite some time. if you want want to talk health care, this is the guy to do it with, he thoses as much as you'll e want to know. also my new communications director, danny, rights over here, and if you ever need to mariachi, he's probably ingood in that as he is communications. hose got a voice and plays good. and reese really let me introduce our interns, they get the loudist rowbility after plus at the en because they do tremendous work, they're fabulous college students and we get them for free. so melissa hugh from u.c. berkeley to armando who is doing our translating for those who need understandingh what we're saying. ) so who's gotish spanishphones for the translation? we go, right here. to thank our guests from the los angeles police have been, who gracious enough to be with us today. if we have any questions that the lapd,ular will to i know they'd be willing to respond, but they're also here make sure everything goes well. ever since 9/11, one of the members ofs for congress is to make sure we protect your safety as well as lapd has been great. near always there. we've never had to use their great thatut it's they make themselves available. sergeant,roduce the the center lead officers. very much for being with us. okay. having done that, let me just few things about d.c. maybe to stimulate conversation. give you ajust to on.e of what's going i hope most of you received the news letter that i recently sent out. we have copies here as well. it gives a little more information about some of the are going on. but let me mention a couple of things that are pressing. heard that have congress finally was able to differences and past legislation to deal with the veterans administration crisis, with our veterans. essentially what's been manyning is that with so vets now coming in as a result of now finishing up their tours of duty, in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere, but also because the president did something that i think presidents before him should have done a long time ago and regauge the condition of some of our veterans who back as vietnam. remember agent orange? remember some much those things? never gave vets who went through and gave service full accountability and credit for their service, having served at things likewe used agent orange, and many of them came back, suffered health wise, never gave them full credit for the disability that may have been due to the fact that they served at a time when we were using certain chemical agents and the rest. president obama said, you know, you're getting on in age, it's to documentable completely for 100% that your chronic emphysema or whatever it might be was caused by agent else. or something but there's a chance it could have been, a good likelihood. make thesethan veterans get only partial service from v.a. for that and go out and find the services somewhere else at a very high expense, the president it's time to give service to our men and women who srve and consider it 100%. a result of that, more of veteranse administration health services. so you put that in combination womenll the men and coming back from iraq and afghanistan and it was just too much. today a soldier surviving what would have killed soldier 40 years ago in vietnam. it's a different thing. god they're surviving, but they're coming back with injuries that really make it backcult for them to come and adjust and get back to work. that's what happened. essentially ation compromise bill said this. to veterans who have been than 30 days,re to get into the v.a. system toks get their care, or for veterans live more than 40 miles away from a veterans administration health facility, and it's a real burden to have to travel more to get somes just service, they're going to be provider, health care provider locally. close by, without having to go a virginia a. hospital or v.a. center to get their services. through thet them door right away. we're also providing additional to beefs for the v.a. up their services so they can bring more doctors and health care providers. so what we're trying to do is beef up the v.a. as quickly as we can. so that e they earned them. madison signed by the president, so that will be underway.

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141231

important and thorough contemporaneous record of a presidency that's ever existed. >> among other things, it does give the lie to the notion reagan was either lazy or undisciplined because he clearly , was the opposite of both. >> he was the most disciplined person i ever knew, he really was. he would show up every morning at 9:00 on the button in the oval office. when i was chief of staff, i used to be with him at 9:00. we would have a meeting that lasted no more than 30 minutes. he would start each meeting with a funny little story. and it was a meeting or two before i realized when he finished, he expected me to have a funny little story. that was his stock and trade. i treasured that. dole also had that same talent. he can put things in perspective, with humor, more effectively than most philosophers can do it with a serious dissertation and i admire that. >> do you think that's a real weapon in making the senate work. >> a tool, not a weapon, but a tool. it's extraordinarily valuable. and sometimes dole may be criticized as an rapier-like wit. i don't think of it like that but a quick mind that was able to put things in perspective. not everybody appreciated it. if you think back on it, most of the "rapier thrusts" require right on the mark. he still has that sense of humor. >> i always sensed, it sounds like a cliche. i think it's true of dole more than most people, he really never forgot where he came from. he is still at heart, he's still russell, kansas. >> that's right. >> there's an element of the populist in dole, there's a real disdain for pomposity and stuffed shirts bipartisan, the guchi and loafers and the lobbyists. the relationship with reagan, i would be interested to know, you were thinking about running in 1988 yourself. >> that's right. >> obviously, you put those plans on the shelf to become chief of staff. then you had this very unusual situation where the vice president is clearly running and your senate leader is running. how did the president handle that somewhat awkward thing? >> my recollection, richard, is that he didn't handle it at all. [laughter] he just let the chips fall where they would. he showed no preference. he showed no priority between them. i admired that. it was a delicate situation and unusual one. i don't think he ever did anything about it. certainly never talked to me about it. >> your sense is he had a very good relationship with dole? >> oh, yeah, had a great relationship with dole. i do remember the first time dole came to a leadership meeting. before it started, i went down a little early, he invited no do he asked about dole, he did. i don't remember what i said except it was favorable. he was curious about dole. as i recall, he's the only one he asked about. >> really? that's doubly interesting because the story in 1976, was that one of the reasons dole wound up being on the ticket was the people around florida, at least, had been led to believe he had reagan's -- whether that was in fact true or not. >> i have an old friend in tennessee, who has a philosophical statement that i've come to admire. he called me the other day and said, howard, we've reached the age, where most of the things we remember never happened. [laughter] it is more often true than not. >> it's been said -- i've heard it said that in some ways it's more fun to be minority leader than majority leader? >> don't you believe it. i've been both. majority is better. minority leader is interesting it's challenging. it may have fit dole's personality better than majority leader. >> how so? >> well, it did, because he was able to crystalize an issue and formulate a position that would go right to the heart of the issue. as majority leader, he had to take a lot of different opinions of different people and try to set aside the point of view. i must tell you, majority leader is the second best job in washington. i said that to ronald reagan once. he said, no, howard, it's the second best in washington. i said, mr. president, i'm sure that's so in terms of historical standing, but look around. i got a nice office, i have a big staff, i have a car, i have access to an airplane and i don't have secret service and i still have a life of my own. he thought for a minute, says, well, maybe so. [laughter] >> the -- i want to get back into the first reagan term. which was a revolutionary period in this country. almost a u-turn in a lot of ways policy, in the whole relationship of government and economy and an individual. dole was a good soldier. apparently a very effective soldier but he couldn't have , agreed with everything he was being asked to implement, did he? i mean, balanced budgets are almost spiritual things. i assume that's the result of where he came from and what he went through? >> right, right. that's right. no, i'm sure that's true, but the first thing you said that dole was a good soldier is the most important part of the conversation because he was. i cannot tell you that's where he acted against his own native instinct, but i'm sure there were. i can tell you, i never went -- when i was leader, i never went to bob dole and asked him something i felt he didn't want to do and he would respond in the affirmative. he had a heavy understanding of the importance of his role as a senator. he had a clear understanding of the relationship between the senate and the president. he did not confuse the two. he knew of the separation of powers and special responsibilities each had. it's as if he had studied at length and perhaps he had, how these relationships existed in the past, imperfect as they were. he was determined to create a new relationship that would best serve the country. i think he did that in large measure. i think he served as a model for all of us. i know he served as a model for me. >> how so? >> in establishing a willingness to talk to the white house but without feeling it's -- you were in a subordinate role. dole was never in a subordinate role. dole was dole, and nobody doubted that. >> the implication is that the >> the implication is that the dole operating in 1982, 1981 1983 is different from the freshman senator of 1969, 1968 1970? >> it was absolutely different. but that difference is something that happens to all, i think conscientious members of the senate. different after a month or a year, or your first term. as you begin to understand the relationships and responsibilities. and when you're no longer overwhelmed by your own importance. i remember a senator from new hampshire, it may have been my first day in the senate, i was going -- did go into the senate chamber and he was there to greet me, as were others, and he said, howard, can you smell the marble? >> i said, senator, i don't think so, i don't think marble has a smell. he said, yes, it does. once you smell it, you'll be ruined for life. i thought about that a lot. i don't think i ever smelled marble and certainly bob dole never smelled marble. >> conservatives don't like to hear the word "grow" because you know, he grew in office, that means he moved left. can you explain what real growth is and why it does tend to terrify the right? >> no, i cannot. it varies from time-to-time. it's that old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i don't think you necessarily grow to the right. in my own case, forgive me for bringing up my own experience, in my own case, i think i grew to the left. not by design, but by force of circumstance. the panama canal was a good example in my life career. i started out in the mainstream, republican opposition to the panama canal treaty. the more i thought about it and studied it, the more i was convinced i was wrong and i should support it, and i did. for those who care to see, i'll show them the scars and bruises about my head and shoulders. there's some who say -- some in tennessee think i'm a bolshevik. i'm someone who grew to -- >> that's what i mean, growth is almost assumed to be kind of a coopting by the left. >> that's right. dole is certainly regard eded certainly regarded that way by some in the party. what does that say about where the party is going in the last 25 years? >> yeah. well, i don't know. but i think the party is permanent. i think it is not about to collapse. i think its center of gravity will shift and change. i think it's an essential part of our governing mechanism and must endure. >> for example, you both came into this position, dole strikes me, like gerald ford, as a kind of midwest conservative, whose conservativism in many ways is grounded in economics, who had a kind of healthy, you know, healthy skepticism about what government could do particularly overnight, particularly to bring about the millennium. at the same time, a healthy, leave me alone, not a libertarian but basically, , government should probably stay out of the classroom, out of the board room and out of the bedroom. that's not for the public discourse. yet clearly, in your political career, that line has been crossed and conservativism was redefined. how uncomfortable, if at all was that process of having the social issues increasingly come to define conservetism. >> it certainly was important to me and bob dole. the party and country has moved. we owe a responsibility to understand that and respond to it. not necessarily agree to it but to understand that. >> you mention how it has moved. my dad was at the house for many years, and he was adamantly opposed to any sort of federal aid to education either directly or implication. now, it's an article of faith, if you're in the house or senate, you better get our share. it's a big share anymore. it's changed. change, once again, is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant economy and democracy. it will continue to change. i don't know how it will change, it may go forward or backward or sideways. change is not a bad word. and it is inevitable in my view. in terms of parties themselves you hear republicans or are conservative and democrats are liberal. they're neither in my view. their center of gravity will vary from time-to-time, new -- and be conservatives and moderates in one party or the other. those things will change. but the great center still runs america. i don't think it's a mathematical center. i think bob dole understood this more than anybody, it's not a mathematical center, but rather a consensus view that certain things are at the center of our political system. that's what should drive our determination of other more complex issues. >> i remember dole telling me about you and jesse helms. it was a vote -- literally jesse's was the vote, i don't know whether -- but what of those post 1981 tax -- >> i remember. i guess in 'february of '81, the i guess in february of 1981, the first serious challenge i had as the new majority leader, the first republican leader since bill noland of california, the first challenge i had was when we had to vote on a debt limit increase. i assumed that would all go ok i began to count heads, i think howard green came to me and said, i don't believe you will win this. i got a bunch of freshmen senators in the office around my conference table and we talked and carried on. it was clear i hadn't convinced anybody and we were going to lose that thing. as i went out i saw jesse helms. i said jesse, i have a big problem. i don't think i am going to get these new freshmen senators to vote for the debt limit increase. after we voted. he said howard can i talk to them. i said of course. so he came back in, jesse did. jesse helms. they were all gathered there. and he said, gentlemen. i understand you are not going to vote for this debt limit increase the and they said i understand that many of you ran against it. i want you to know i never voted for a debt limit increase. beforehand, ronald reagan is my president and i am going to do it and so are you. and i got all but one. [laughter] but that was strom thurmond did the same thing. your earlier question -- what affected senior service have on the new members. in that case, the one with experience had a profound effect on the outcome of that vote. and without success at that vote, i don't know what our leadership would have been like. >> i remember asking george mitchell if he could describe what it is, whatever quality or qualities, dole had that made him succeed. in the leadership position. he said it was a combination of things but almost a sixth sense about what combination of personalities and legislation change. what mix would work. it's not something you can quantify. it is not something you can learn in a textbook. >> not only that it is not really an intellectual exercise. it is more a personality arrangement. you sort of sense these things rather than hear them or understand them. you sort of guess. but if you guess right, you usually win. >> psychological gift. in some ways. >> not based on a check. it's based on how you evaluate the person's basic views, beliefs, prejudice and his oppositions. but that is the quality of leadership. i think dole had it in spades. >> but that suggests that you get to know all of your colleagues? inside-out? >> you got to know them. it is more than that. it's hard for me to tell you what i think about this. i don't think it is just knowing them. in some strange way you have got to understand. you have got to be able to anticipate what they're going to say on a particular issue. maybe that's too ethereal for this circumstance, but that's what i think. >> that's not something you can teach in a classroom? >> no, it is not something you can emulate. either you have got it and do it or you don't. >> do you sense he was impatient? >> dole? >> dole. >> oh, yeah. he was impatient. ambitious, and sometimes criticized for being over ambitious. i never thought that. >> dan rostenkowski told his story, that oh, gosh, before the budget talks, before the government shutdown. >> the first government shutdown. >> yeah. bill clinton called him. and he said, ok, tell me something about dole. he said, give me a leg up. you know, what are we negotiating. he went on about what a great guy dole was. he is the most impatient man on the planet. he said there will come a time when he -- when he will be so desperate to get out of the room he will just give you whatever you want. that may be an exaggeration. and yet, that's the fascinating thing. that impatience that i saw and yet what you are talking about and what senator mitchell talked about requires an extraordinary amount of patience. to know people. to wait all night. if that's what it takes to bring these things together. >> impatience is a tool. dole was not arbitrary or capricious in his opposition. is grounded in deep conviction on a variety of issues. he is a man who will listen, that is what i would have said. he was a tough adversary. i was surprised that he was elected as my successor. >> when did you decide you were going to run? >> about a year and a half before i -- >> why? >> always felt that being in congress was not a lifetime job. my wife had terminal cancer then. i had to take care of her. so i left. i had no regrets about that. i will always be grateful for the 18 years i served in the senate. but i had no difficulty in leaving. but the question of my successor came to be very interesting. i thought, i think most people felt that ted stevens would succeed. some thought no it will be pete diminicci. others thought this, that, and the other. i don't felt that most anybody felt that bob dole was going to be elected majority leader. >> and why? >> no. i don't know why. that's what i think. and i also remember, you know, i didn't vote. i was not going to be back, but i was there. my role as sitting majority leader. i remember the chairman of the policy committee and thus responsible for the election. i remember when they announced the vote. i think, one vote, two votes. they elected. and he leaned over john green and he said burn the ballots so nobody would ask for a recount. bob dole was a fortunate choice. i congratulated him then. and i congratulate him now. he served with distinction. >> a couple of quick things. is the key job of the majority leader persuasion? >> it is a combination of things. certainly persuasion is part of it, but not the only part of it. it is too complex to define in this brief time, but it is not just persuasion. >> that has great power. the younger members want to get on the agenda or get a particular point across, the majority leader has almost unchallenged authority to deal with that. i cannot remember a single time when i was majority leader that i set a schedule and anybody successfully challenged it. that is a powerful thing. and that may be persuasion, may be intimidation. it is powerful and more than just persuasion. but i would say, yeah, the majority leader is ill-defined not constitutional or statutory, but the second best job in washington. >> when dole was running for president, 1988, and in 1996 decided wrenchingly to leave the senate. it was harder for him to go than you to go? >> i think so, probably. yeah. >> did he ask for advice? >> did he ask me for advice? >> yes. >> >> no. nor would i have volunteered advice. everybody has to make that decision. that is a very personal decision. nobody advised me. i would not have advised dole if he asked. >> how do you think, say, ten, 20 years from now. a generation that for whom bob dole is a name in a history book, how do you think dole should be remembered? what is his -- >> that is a very good question, richard. i have given a little thought to that not because i want to write the history book just because it is a natural thing to think about. i think dole will be remembered first as emblematic of world war ii. and that he shed credit on those who survived the war and those who then went on to be of service in the country. that's no small achievement that is something to be remembered for. as i drive by the new world war ii memorial, i thought about that the other day. he will be remembered not just for the stones and pillars which were originally richly deserved but , he will be remembered as a legacy of that tradition. that's what he will be remembered for. and that the generation that fought world war ii came back and continued their service to the country in a variety of ways including in the senate. and bob dole is -- a good example of that. >> on c-span, former members of congress who died this year. next, a speech by jim jeffords when he changed party affiliations in 2001. then congressman james traficant addresses congress. later, an interview with bill frenzel. then an interview with former committee chair jim oberstar. >> on the next washington journal, we look ahead to the 114th congress and the new republican majority, the largest majority since 19 28th. more about the new congress with the daily beast, discussing the liberal and progressive general. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal, alive at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> new year's day on the c-span network, here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern energy conservation with david crane tigre pickens, worn brown, and dean kamen. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, the historical society holds a conversation on race. 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the explorers club apollo seven astronaut on the first manned spaceflight. new year's day on c-span2, just before noon eastern, hector towbar on the 33 man -- men buried in chilean mine. richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. 8:00 p.m. eastern, former investigative correspondent for cbs news cheryl attkisson under expenses reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on american history tv on c-span3, at 10:00 a.m. eastern, why need a abernathy on her experiences in the role of women in the civil rights movement. at 4 p.m., brooklyn college professor on the link between alcohol and politics in pre-lever lucian or new york city. at 8:00 p.m., patrick a draws 10 presidential characters as historian david mccullough discusses the presidents and their memorable qualities. new year's day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> we continue with from on senator jim jeffords, who died in august. senator jeffords upset the balance of power in senate by switching from republican to independent. the change gave the democrats as the majority. senator jeffords spoke to the media about his decision during a news conference in burlington. this is 15 minutes. >>[applause] >> it has really grown since i've been away. [laughter] good morning. anyone that knows me, knows that i love vermont. vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. it was the first state to outlaw slavery. it elected matthew lyon to the congress, notwithstanding his fighting of the sedition act. the higher share of his sons in the civil war than perhaps any other state in the union. i recall vermont senator ralph flanders statement 50 years ago, helping to bring to a close on the mccarthy hearings, a sordid chapter in our history. today's chapter is a much smaller consequence. i think it is appropriate that i share my thoughts with my fellow vermonters. for the past several weeks, i have been struggling with a very difficult decision. it is difficult on a personal level, but even more difficult because of the larger impact in the senate. and also the nation. i have been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not i should remain republican. i do not approach this question lightly. i has been a lifetime in the republican party. i have served 12 years in what i believe is the longest continuous republican seat in history. i ran for reelection as a republican justice past fall. i had no thoughts whatsoever then of changing parties. the party i grew up in was the party of george aikins, ernest gibson, l sanders, bob stafford. these names may not mean much they outside vermont, but each served vermont as republican senator in the 20th century. i became a republican, not because i was born into the party, but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many republicans stood for, moderation, tolerance fiscal responsibility. their party, our party, was the party of lincoln. to be sure, we had our differences in the vermont republican party, but even are more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive. our former governor championed act 250 which preserved our environmental heritage. in vermont, calvin coolidge, our nation's 30th president, good point with pride to his state and the willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. aiken, gibson, flanders, stafford -- they were all republicans, but they were vermonters first. they spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and they did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in. for 26 years in washington, first in the house of representatives, now in the senate, i have tried to do the same. i can no longer do so as a republican. increasingly, i find myself in disagreement with my party. i understand that many people are more conservative than i am, and they form the republican party. given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to do with me and for me to do with them. indeed, the party's electoral success has underscored the dilemma that i face within the party. the past, the various wings of the republic and party in congress have had some freedom to argue and influence, and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. the election of president bush change that dramatically. it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, were largely support the president's agenda. and yet, more and more, i find i cannot. those who do not know me may thought i took pleasure in resisting the president's budget. or that i enjoy the limelight. nothing could be further from the truth. i had serious substantive reservations about that budgets as you all know. the decision set in place for the future. looking ahead, i can see more and more instances where i would disagree with the president on very fundamental issues, the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, taxes, spending, missile defense, energy, and the environment. and a host of other issues, large and small. the largest for me is education. i come from the state of a u.s. senator from vermont who gave america this land-grant college system. his republican party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every american child. now, when success seems to be measured why the number students. in order to best represent my state of vermont, my own conscience and printable sites to for my whole life, i will be the republican party and become an independent. control of the senate -- [applause] sorry for that. control of the senate will be changed by my decision. [applause] i am sorry for that interruption, but i understand it. i will make this change and will caucus with the democrats for organizational purposes. once the conference report on the tax bill is it to the president, i gave my word to the president that i would not try to intervene in the signing of that bill. my colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to be friends with me any longer. many of my supporters will be disappointed. some of my staffers will see the lives of ended. i regret this for a much. having made my decision, the weight has been lifted from my shoulders, but now hangs heavy on my heart. i was not elected to this office to be something i am not. this comes as no surprise to vermonters because independence is the vermont way. [applause] my friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. i appreciate the support they have shown when have agreed with me, and their patients when they have not. i will ask for their support and patience again, which i understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends. i have informed president bush, vice president cheney, of my decision. they are good people with whom i disagree. they have been fair and decent to me. i have informed the senator my decision. three of these four men disagree with my decision to. but i hope each understood my reason. it is entirely possible the fourth one may have second thoughts down the road. that's the way it is. i have changed my party label but i have not changed my beliefs. indeed, my decision is about affirming the principles that have shaped my career. i hope that the people of vermont will understand it. i hope that in time my colleagues will as well. i am confident that it is the right decision. yes? >> what do you say to the people who -- [applause] [indiscernible] >> i understand. i'm sorry ahead no expectation of this. >> [indiscernible] >> i was not the campaign chairman, but that is a small point. i believe that the time and had hoped the time that those of us -- not just myself, and i speak for many moderates in the party who had high hopes when the president spoke of education and when he gave his dedication to education. i had hoped that we would be able to follow him. i praised the president or his education package. it will alert this nation, every student, every school, every state will know exactly how bad they are. that is the probably have with it. there are terrible problems out there that will have to be solved, and that is why in the budget process i stood up and said no, we can't give all his money back. we have too many high priorities, education number one. we have got to provide the resources for the president's plan. if the resources are not there it will be measuring the school systems. i told the president personally. i could not after that sustained the direction of the budgetary process. you know i stood up and we succeeded in getting $300 billion extra to spend. >> do you feel the president has not lived up to his campaign promise? >> i don't remember a promise to fund. he gives a promise for a new direction in education. a promise without funding is not a useful direction at all. >> has their personal treatment had anything to do with this? >> nothing. it is laughable at times. you get upset with it, but that had nothing to do with it. >> when did you make your decision? >> i made my decision yesterday on the way down. i'll tell you why. i met with the moderates yesterday. it was the most emotional time of ever had in my life, with my closest friends urging me not to do what i plan to do. it affected their lives substantially. i know for instance that the chairman of the finance committee had dreamed all his life of chairman, now he's chairman for a couple weeks, and he will no longer be the chairman. all the way down the line, i could see the anguish and the disappointment as i talked. i told him i would not make my final decision until i had time on the way to vermont. i did leave it open. i cannot justify not going forward. >> last question. last question. >> [indiscernible] >> i have communicated with them . i've had conversations with them on the phone to make sure they understood what i was doing and why was doing it. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] >> wednesday net on c-span, remember the celebrity's who died in 2014, starting with robin williams. here's a look. >> the bottom line is we are here tonight because of the shrub. you know who i'm talking about. george w. bush junior. the w stands for, where the hell is it. you rely some men are born great,'s some achieve greatness and some get it as a graduation gift. [applause] i just one ask the secret service, it is his secret service name gilligan? gilligan's on the move, little buddy, keep going. i hate to see him keep asking if he can use his lifeline. no. can't do it. can't tell you. not going to do it. yes. not the brightest bulb on the tree. so frightening. i don't want to see him in charge of the economy. it's like giving oj a benihana. no. no. >> we remember celebrities who died in 2014, including robin williams, maya angelou, ruby dee. that is it a :00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. book tv and primetime continues wednesday night on c-span2 starting at a pm eastern with walter isaacson on his book, the innovators how a group of hackers created the digital revolution. at 915 eastern igods. after that, dragnet nation, a request for privacy, security, and freedom in the world of relentless surveillance. finally, adam tanner, the world of personal data, lifeblood of big business, and the end of privacy as we know it. book tv and prime time, each night this week on c-span two. >> our in memoriam program continues with james traficant. he represented the 17th district of ohio and was one on for outspoken speeches on the house floor. he died in september at the age of 73. in 2002, congress voted to expel him after he was convicted on 10 bribery accounts. -- 10 felony counts, including bribery. >> you heard on the news, the first national news story that i was involved in a scheme by contract. it made national headlines news. the one was a friend of mine. she was so distraught, she called me by phone. i did know what she was talking about. she called and recanted after they put her in protective custody for it weeks, paid her a hundred dollars, and when she said she committed no crime then they demeaned her. through the process, they told her to ensure her safety to go public. now, if you are a juror -- if that is not poisoning, what is? the next one was a $150,000 addition. i'm an old chair. finally a man with a conscience gems of and says i want to apologize. they were going to indict me, takeaway my business, ruin my life, my attorney said why do you have to spend $500,000. tell them what they want to hear. i did. i felt like a coward. immediately, went back to my office for an affidavit. the next day, he called the girlfriend and admitted what he said. now, on the get right to the point. i want you to imagine that there is a small army of patriots and they are facing a gigantic army armed to the teeth. the captain, trying to show strength, tells his assistant to go to the tents and get my bright red vest. he puts the red vest on says come to show the power encourage of our people, without a side arm i'm going to carry the sword. the blood will not be seen because of my bright red vest and you'll be encouraged to fight for our homeland. he ran out into battle and was destroyed. his assistant came up and called his attendant. he say go to the tent and give it is dark brown pants. think about it. tonight i have dark pants on. in my skid to death? no. -- am i scared to death? no. i will go to jail before resigning the to something i did not do. i will go case-by-case. the judge's husband is a senior partner in a law firm that represented one of the key witnesses in my case and that is not part of legal action. in addition, i'm not going to mention names, that person admitted to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians. he said he gave me $50,000 bribe because we're at a public meeting. he said we waited until everyone left, walked out together, sat in his car, and gave me his money. one of my attorneys is a bright young attorney -- the chief judge of the northern district of ohio and he said, what do you want me to do. i came to that event when you're trying to put sales-tax together to leverage funds i walk you out in sight you get in the rain truck. another witness said he would pick me up in the green truck. i would to get my truck and went to put the hood up. they accepted the false testimony, even though he admitted to lying in a previous rico trial. that is one count. he is a patriot. i did not subpoena him because his attorney said don't subpoena him, subpoena me. i did it. i felt sorry for him. before i was indicted, i have a tape where he says everything on that tape that he told the ethics committee. he said, i think i'm living in red china. now let's look at a few affidavits. dealing with david sugar. just yesterday, caught up with. they might pull me into jail for being out of my district. with one of my staffers close by, he admitted that he told harry that after the second fbi visited, because he backdated some invoices, that he did not lie. he would not only be divided -- and i did, his wife, his daughter also. now, in addition to that amendment of joe stable told another constituent three days ago i feel so bad for jim david sugar told me the same thing. he said to me, i would love to help you. now he sang in the paper, i never said that. his attorney said, he admits to meeting traficant, but did nothing illegal. now let's talk about tony. his agreement, brother and coupon of fugitive warrant here's what he said $12,000 worth of work on the traficant farm and he owned me. not all of you know me. if you think someone on me, you throw me to hell out of here. witnesses testify that i asked him for jackhammers because we had a farm. i never had a farm. i asked him to let me use the jackhammer, and he said it was an insurance problem. the he said, i don't want you to do that. you get to close the barn and drop it in. and that's what happened folks. and that whole arm fell down. he came out and help me to prop it up. it cause my dad $15,000. guess what? he said yesterday that his building happen to be firebombed last week. now all the records are missing. sinclair, now look, your prosecutors, mr. callahan made a hell of a point. i want the prosecutor think, you really want jim traficant. didn't allow me to testify. all my tapes -- even on those who took the fifth amendment. he lied through his teeth. his sister told me that there were three brothers and he was my friend. she said he was sick. they took into florida where he had his leg amputated, brought him back and are children did not even attend the funeral. she submitted an affidavit and testified. god almighty here. now -- the prosecutor said traficant is too intelligent to be taped. why didn't a fake body injuries? i have a divisive i could take you right now, your conversation in the midst of all of this and you would not know you're being taped. the number one target in the united states, the number was not cap. they did not when he get an admission. they did not want to get traficant saying go to that grand jury and do this. everybody that testified against me would have gone to jail and lost a law license and ruined their lives. a brother-in-law testifies. he said his brother-in-law told him that he was taped by someone that he had bribed a county engineer hundreds of millions of dollars. he told his brother-in-law that he'd go to jail for 10 years and was $15 million and all they wanted was traficant. he told his brother that he added up all the campaign contributions. you know was amazing? it not allow the brother-in-law who is subject to jeopardy being sentenced in another case to testify. guess what i did? said i did this in a barn. i said what on was a question mark he could not identify the barn. or was i doing in a barn? he were cleaning the horses -- he said you were cleaning the horses holds -- cold is. anybody else in the barn? the juried into that one out. i have an affidavit on every one of these counts. sandy testified. over a period of years, money that i borrowed from. when the irs nailed me, they took me to civil court and i made $2400 a month. that just ran out and now they are going to put me in jail for 12 years, take everything my wife and i owned. i'll go to jail, but i'll be dammed if i'll be pressured by a government that pressured these witnesses to death, to get a conviction on their number one target in the country. jim, an fbi special agent said if you get us anything like traficant, we will build a monument to you. i got an affidavit from a guy from canada that i helped in a case where 11 chinese were arrested. he said, i want to thank jim traficant publicly. they said, stay away from traficant. i had an fbi agent who compromised one of my constituents. she said, i don't want my 87-year-old mother-in-law bothered. i'll be dammed if somebody's going to -- [inaudible] one of my constituents. >> the gentleman will avoid profanity or indecent language. >> how much time do i have left? >> 3.5 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. >> i have an affidavit of a scott brodie, sat through the whole trial -- i'd like your attention. i got this affidavit today about an hour before i came here. he was released today's before the trial -- two days before the trial. his aunt died. when he came back, he was dismissed. scott brodie, he said he knew the prosecutor would help him out. he said, i knew jim drop against was innocent. he said, i can see how he impeached the witnesses. mr. berman said there was a recant. this is today's newspaper. mr. glaser said he didn't recant. on the evidence, he couldn't see himself convicting jim traficant. mr. brodie told the woman next to him -- i tried to get an avid ffidavit from her. her attorney informed us that she was afraid to get involved. [inaudible] look here. [indiscernible] that technology is already used on our submarines and our naval aircraft carriers. bring those jobs, bring those headquarters from manassas. i've helped everybody in my district. i didn't even like some of them. when they have 150 employees -- [indiscernible] did i write letters to secretary of state? yes. did i write letters to secretary of commerce? yes. department of transportation? yes. but here is where i'm at tonight. i have been pressured for 20 years. in 1996, read this, dear sheriff, after listening to -- [indiscernible] i decided to come forward. i would not lie. i'm proud now that i did not lie. enclosed is my truthful affidavit. here is what they wanted him to say. he was outside the door and heard a bribery deal. he didn't mention the $10,000. [indiscernible] he owed me money, never gave me the titles. flying members of congress around, getting senators' girlfriends gifts, but you get out of jail free by getting the man right here. you must take america back. don't be surprised if i don't win behind bars. the american people are afraid of their government. why are we afraid of our government? i want you to listen to this. [indiscernible] they brought a 30-year veteran from philadelphia. seven trips in 40 days, a quarter million dollars, and all he did was add up the numbers the prosecutor gave him. he said he did no investigation. when he left, he was so confused that he walked into the edge of the jury. listen carefully. when it comes to fingerprints, the judge smiled like a fox. she dismissed the jury. the prosecutor says, your honor -- [inaudible] 1000 documents. listen to this. he said, the one time i gave him an envelope and he took it immediately to the fbi. i'm an old sheriff. look, you tell traficant -- [indiscernible] what i'm trying to tell you is, there is no physical evidence. when you talk about $2500 -- [inaudible] after i left my employment for 22 months, $2500 didn't go. an employee said he earned $50,000 from me and $50,000 from the government. he spent $60,000 on advertising. folks, they went back 15 years on a horse transaction. they couldn't find -- [inaudible] if you drink five gallons of gatorade, you are going to expend five gallons of gatorade somewhere in one of these restrooms. you know what you have before you? we are getting to the point where a case can be brought for conspiring to buy kellogg's cereal. i'm prepared to lose everything. i'm prepared to go to jail. i'm going to tell you what -- [indiscernible] you know what jim traficant said about janet reno? the administration wants them out. i said this on radio. i called janet reno a traitor. i believe in my heart, she is. i believe monica and henry were not that important, but i think that red army chinese general -- i'm going to tell it like it is. [indiscernible] the democrats didn't want clinton and the party hurt, you let it slide. janet reno if i don't go to jail, i'll be in orlando. you aren't going to be elected to any damn thing. how much time do i have left? >> the gentleman has 22 minutes left. i would caution the gentleman to please avoid profanity, indecent language. the gentleman should address the chair and not other members by their first names. the gentleman may proceed. >> it is tough to comply with some of those rules. it was brought up, why don't you go to speaker hastert? hastert owes you. i didn't go to speaker. you go ahead and expelled me. you made the irs, the fbi, the justice department so strong. i want to thank bill archer and the republican party. 12 years, i tried to change the burden of proof to protect the american peoples' homes from being seized. those details are relevant to my case and the irs hates me for it. the law was passed in 1998. 95% of the american public wanted the traficant bill. the republican chairman called me and said, we are going to put your burden of proof in and put your language on seizure in the conference, and wrote me a letter giving me the credit. let me give you the statistics that i'm proud of and i want to share. this may be the last time i'm employed, and i expect it. the year before compared to the year after the law -- [indiscernible] thank you, mr. archer. property liens dropped to 161,000. seizures of individual family-own homes dropped to 57 in 50 states. congratulations. i want to fight these people. i want to fight them like a junkyard dog. they tied my hands behind my back and that first vote was 7-5. i'm not going to get into the personal dynamics. there were some people that were predisposed to vote against me and that upset him. by the way, one of the jurors said, it is unfortunate, but most of those members of congress are crooks anyway. i don't think we are crooks. i never ripped off -- [indiscernible] i have a lot of hispanics. yes, i voted for mr. dornan. i got legal precedent by allowing legal immigrants to vote in the election. i'm sorry, but that's the way it is. since then i think you have been an excellent member. if you've been offended by that i'm sorry. i will say this -- [indiscernible] i think anybody who jumps the fence shouldn't be made a citizen. they should be thrown out. i'm saddened to my heart i can't vote on it. i don't know how much time i have left. show me one piece of physical evidence. mr. d tour spent $600,000 and is now without an attorney. his last attorney, he paid $239,000 to, went to the judge and said, i don't know anything and ask to be withdrawn from the case. he had already given $239,000. one thing rang true. every one of the witnesses that testified -- they had some witnesses scared to death. a few witnesses had already gone to jail. you know what i don't blame anyone of you. i think if they had something on -- i'm going to say this, that is violating the sanctity of this house. he said, i will not lie. if they indict me, go ahead and indict me. he talked about $1000. why did you pay so much? i rented a corvette because i wanted a car to drive and speak at one of the events. i had the car for three weeks. it got picked up on 395. i ended up paying $6,000. i paid for it and got the records. everything i paid was by check or a credit card. no cash in 20 years. my god, if you don't give me a right to appeal a judge -- [indiscernible] who is our last bastion of appeal? speaker, i voted for you. i thought you were better for this country. i thought this program was better. i apologize for my comments. it was in the heat of the moment. i apologize for those words. with that, i retain the balance of my time. >> wednesday night, we remember celebrities who died in 2014 including robin williams, maya angelou, and an actor and civil rights activist. q&a is 10 years old. to mark a decade of conversations, we are featuring interviews from each year. wednesday, nancy gibbs and michael duffy discuss their book , "the presidents club." that is at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in memoriam continues with minnesota republican congressman bill frenzel, who died this year at the age of 88. he was best known for his work as ranking member. congressman frenzel discussed the budget deal which established rules for federal spending that still exist today. when president bush signed the bill, he was accused by many of breaking his so-called no new taxes pledge. this is 10 minutes. >> congressman frenzel, you are the ranking republican on the house budget committee with chairman panetta. he gave me a comment that you were in the minority. but you did vote for the final package. i don't recall if you voted for the first package. welcome, and thank you for your willingness to share your memories of that agreement. >> i'm honored to be sitting in a nice senator's seat with all these luminaries who worked so hard on that venture. first, i think i ought to say, i subscribe to the sununu theory of what happened. i think he outlined it pretty much according to my recollection. when he got done, i said it was pretty good except he was too easy on newt. it is my warmth and charm. [laughter] i have some comments, but we all look at the thing differently depending on where we sat. because i set at the lowest rung on the ladder, my perceptions of what happened are probably undoubtedly, going to be less valuable than most of the other people who sat there. i look at the differences between now and 1990. we have the divided government. we had it then. 1990 was easier, because as bill hoagland often points out, we didn't have a debt ratio weighing on us. we had a significant deficit, of course, but the long-term looked possible if we could solve the short-term problems. that was different and easier. also, in 1990, the parties were competitive, but they were not polarized as they are today. in those days, the bad guys were the opposition. today, they are the enemy. there is a world of difference between those two words. yes, we had some distrust. also, we had some ability to work with each other and believe each other. it made life easier at that time. there were other divisions in the congress. the party polarization today tends to make it republicans versus democrats all the way. there were other factions in those days, the budgeteers versus appropriators etc., that cut across some of those party lines. the most important difference, in my judgment, is that there was less outside pressure on the negotiators from radio and tv extremists lobbyists, core constituencies, users of social media, etc. mostly, the negotiators went under political anonymity. they went in the press, but they didn't get 500 e-mails every minute and they didn't have people featuring them on tv and crucifying them with regularity. i don't want to stay on this too long, but for me there are some lessons in both of these. one is that in budget matters never rely on regular order. it doesn't work. agreement -- when everybody has a veto, nothing gets done. the agreement such as was forged in 1990 takes both leadership and followership. we credited all the leaders and we know who they were. you also have to give credit to those who followed. johnson knew new pointed out -- john sununu pointed out there were those who did not follow. you need to appoint a few people to do the negotiating and let them be the leaders, and hope that others follow. as a minority house negotiator, i believe that my single most important contribution to that agreement in 1990 was that i did not get in the way of anybody doing important things. the final negotiations have to be done at the top, and they have to have some support, as john pointed out. republican support fell apart in the house. as an interesting aside, i would mention that there is suspicion that that may be afoot again this year. house negotiators may not have the full support on the republican side, as we didn't have in 1990. i think john was right about the opposition bubbling up pretty much at the end of the process. i'm really not a very perceptive fellow, but it didn't occur to me until the week before the first vote came up that we were getting into trouble and that we had a lot of falling off. another rule for me is that headlines are crucial. without them, negotiations never end. i thought six months was much too long in 1990. we are in our fourth year now and getting nowhere. i suppose one advantage this year is the fiscal cliff is a deadline. something is going to have to be done, whether it is the right thing, i don't know. on another rule for me is, ignore the outsiders. don't give the core constituencies or the lobbyists much time. they are going to always be mad at you. get the job done as quickly as you can under the rules before the extremists turn up the pressure. i guess another rule for me is if you turn down a responsible deal, you will get a worse one. that is exactly what happened to john and me in 1990. the republicans in the house knew that they were going to sentence themselves to a worse deal. they apparently were perfectly willing to let that happen. turned out to be a better deal for david. congratulations. and a worse one for us. another thought that i learned from david a long time ago is that no deal is perfect. even the deal that we republicans thought was less good in 1990 did help lead to those clinton surpluses a few years later. any kind of a good deal is going to be disliked by everybody as two speakers have already pointed out. those who vote for it are likely to lose their jobs. i would urge them to do so anyway. even in a recession, there's probably better work out there than congress anyway. thank you. >> on the next "washington journal," william kristol looks ahead to the new congress. then, more about the new congress as michael tom askey discusses the liberal and progressive agenda. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets, all on "washington journal." >> wednesday night, we remember celebrities who died in 2014, including robin williams, maya angelou, and actor and civil rights activist ruby dee. our in memoriam programming concludes with minnesota congressman jim oberstar. he was best known for his work as transportation committee chairman. mr. oberstar minnesota's longest-serving congressman died in may at the age of 79. in 2010 he conducted an interview with c-span just before retiring. this is 30 minutes. >> chairman oberstar, i want to start with partisanship, if we could. first of all, let's stay with the home state. help me understand a state that can support the dfl and the tea party? >> i think this was a unique year of a national wave of reaction against a number of national issues. they did converge in minnesota. they did next door and wisconsin. that could virgin's of anger -- that convergence of anger, lack of understanding perception that the country was off course just came together. we lost the minnesota state senate for the first time since 1972. not only lost the majority lost a 2/3 majority. similarly in the minnesota state house. in my own district, a fringe area around the suburbs, there was a swing. all the state legislators lost in that area. yet, we elected a democrat to the governors office. that was a curious outcome. but it affirms the independence of minnesota voters. >> did you see this coming? >> i knew from the very beginning of the year after the obama inaugural that we were in for a very difficult year. this is a transition election. it was a transformational time. presidents proposed very challenging options for the congress and the american people. we had a huge debt override. we had massive unemployment. and the troubled assets relief program to manage, to deal with. i knew in january we were not going to get these problems solved by the time of the next election. i had prepared by campaign staff that we would have to work very hard and a lot of outreach and take on these issues. but not shrink from the tough looks. health care, i knew, was going to be the toughest. for me, this is something very visceral. in 1948, the steelworkers union, which my father was a founder. in fact, he had card number one in 1937. in 1948, they were negotiating contracts with mixed steel and propose coverage of health insurance and retirement in their contract. the steel company's appeal to the regulations board that said that retirement and health insurance are not subject of contract negotiations. harry truman won the election. he had come to the iron range, he had spoken at a big rally there. he replaced the chairman of the national labor relations board. the steelworkers union appealed the previous decision. the board ruled that health insurance and retirement are extensions of pay. three years later, 1952, the steel workers went on strike for 150 days. i brought lunch buckets out to my father and other men who were on strike. i remember it well. they won. they prevailed. over time, they improved their inclusion of health insurance and retirement pay in their contract negotiations. i wish my father lived long enough to see the day we passed a national health insurance program. it isn't universal coverage, it isn't single-payer, but it is a vast improvement. >> we had in a series of these interviews with members who are not coming back about the fact that over the course of the last 25 or 30 years, it has been a time of growth in the united states. it has always been building in growth for the most part. we are in $14 trillion worth of debt right now. the current congress will find ways to trim government. the question that comes to mind, is it more fun being a congressman when you were there or for the current crop? >> i served on the budget committee for six years during the reagan era. we spent hours and hours of finding ways to trim the spending cut that program, and meet the goals of deficit reduction. it is not a pleasant task. it is one that requires cooperation of the executive branch and the legislative branch. i understand how difficult it is to balance that. in that first reagan budget, it eliminated the grant program for waste-water treatment construction. to clean up our household municipal waste and converting that to a loan program. then the loan program was restricted further. those are the purposes for which i sought service in the congress and i want to expand the support of government for those public purposes that have broad social benefits such as clean water. we are not creating more water in this world. all the water that ever is will be with us today. we need to protect it and handed on to the next generation. i have also served congress long enough to have voted for the clinton deficit reduction package, the bill that set us on course to a balanced budget in 2001. $236 billion budget surplus. in 1993, we voted to cut programs for 400 federal agencies. we reduced the number of subcommittees in the house. we cut our own budget. there was a structural change in the function of government. we also recaptured some of the high-end tax revenue from those high earners that reagan had cut taxes for. the result was $236 billion budget surplus. that was held up $5.70 trillion in january 2001. we were on track to have zero debt held by public in 10 years. then president bush pushed through huge tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans, locked us into two wars and it was not offset by a share of sacrifice by all americans. that put us on course to high unemployment. together with the financial meltdown the change in the glass spiegel act allowed non-banks to function as banks but the we had this market. we had this huge collapse of the home mortgage market, the domestic and international financial market. the need for a rescue package somehow, that becomes the democrats' problem and not the republicans' problem. whether we did not express a properly, we did address it. while the tarp was a bush air a initiative to deal with this worldwide financial meltdown, the restrictions we put on, accountability, secretary of treasury paulson wanted $750 billion. we held them accountable. we put restraints on it. now, all but $20 billion will be paid back. the message got lost in this last election. coming back to your original question yes, i knew we had all these difficult issues to deal with. i knew we had health care to deal with. i did not anticipate health care taking so long. i thought it is something we would see through to enactment in 2009. but that didn't happen because of delays and filibusters. there are 412 house-passed bills , many by the committee on transportation infrastructure that have not been acted upon. the democrats have the white house, the senate, and the house and they cannot pass the bills. somehow, in the telling of the story, the other part wasn't told, about the republicans in the senate that dictated the agenda. senator mcconnell -- give him credit for that. he is very skillful at maneuvering filibusters on the right time and making it difficult for us to move our agenda. much of it was pending in the senate. that included the future of aviation. >> let me ask about partisanship in congress. i've heard a theme repeated throughout interviews about lamenting the partisanship, or lack of bipartisan cooperation in congress. do you share that lament, and if so, can you trace its roots? >> in our committee, we have had the best bipartisanship of any committee in the house and the senate. in 2007, we passed a law to expand the locks on the mississippi and improve navigation and protect against floods and rebuild the wetlands. and other such work for the corps of engineers who are vital to the well-being of this nation. president bush vetoed that bill. he overrode the veto. that is bipartisanship. that is a 2/3 vote. in the history of the congress, there have been 1170 vetoes. i established a partnership with the ranking member of florida. not just when i took the chairmanship, but prior to that, when i was chair of the aviation subcommittee. in his first term of congress, he served on that committee. i established an inclusiveness with the republicans. during the years later got we served in the minority, when mr. schuster was chairman, we travelled the country for the transportation bill that was later known as the t-21. in atlanta, at the end of a news conference, the last question was a reporter who said "why are you a democrat siding with mr. schuster the republican?" i said because i never saw a democratic road or republican bridge. we will build all american road and all-american bridges. the reporter turned to mr. shuster in said "where your -- said "why are you, a republican, traveling with jim oberstar?" he said that we were joined at the hip and we reached a common ground for the better of the country. not everyone has the best the ideas. if you find common ground, you reach good ideas, good policy that is workable for the country. throughout 20007 and 2008 we passed significant legislation reauthorizing amtrak for example. mr. mica came from one perceptive. i came from another. he had an idea of engaging the private sector. i didn't think that would be workable. but as we talked, as we looked each other in the eye, there was a trust between us. he is not setting a trap for me and i am not setting a trap for him. we were being open and honest to see what we could do for the greater public good. we achieved authorization for amtrak that eventually, the following year, 2008, president bush signed into law. i can say that for the state loan fund, the faa authorization bill we passed in 2007, and then again in 2009. a host of other measures putting the posfirst photovoltaic system in the department of energy. republican leadership took more control of committee initiatives and set a harder and more difficult edge. example, their position on earmarks. we've never considered the works of the corps of engineers earmarks. congress has always authorized the corps of engineers. you start with a survey of revolutions. authorize a study to determine whether a levy is the right approach or some other initiative is the right approach. what are some potential cost and benefit? that goes back to the congress. we review it and authorize the next step, then a third step, until it goes all the way through and has a signature of the chief of engineers. republican leadership took the position that this is the category of an earmark and told their members they cannot recommend projects to the core of engineers. that created a point of friction. members knew that constituents wanted these projects. we require members to sign a statement that each member submitting a request has no personal or family interest in the project. secondly, there is a request from a local unit of government that says, we request the project and we have the nonfederal funds to match the federal dollars to carry this to completion. steps like that disrupted the bipartisanship. in this committee room, i said, we need to move this bill. when we get to the point of bringing it to the house floor if there is a change of heart you are welcome to bring your projects back to the authorization level. that could have been done very differently and made highly partisan. i said, that's not the right way to conduct the public's business. >> let us take it to a different subject. between your 18 terms as a member and your time as a staffer on capitol hill, you have seen a lot of presidents. i am wondering which of those he felt was the best at promoting his own legislative agenda. who worked with the congress most effectively? >> lyndon b. johnson, no doubt about it. kennedy was an idea person who inspire people and aroused their best passion, their best instincts, and appealed to the greater good of each individual. lyndon johnson knew how to get it done. he spent a lot of time on the phone. depending on the nature of the problem, if it was a big problem, i need your help. he worked every issue personally in addition to having a very able staff that worked the hill on both sides of the house and the senate. i have never seen someone so effective as johnson. in one instance, i had worked with my predecessor on the public works economic development act. i did a great deal of the staff work, writing the language, the committee report, conference report. i was invited to the white house along with other authors for the signing. lyndon johnson grabbed me by the lapel and said "i want you to tell john that i want that." i went right across the room to john and said, -- he looked at me laughing and said, "i know what you are here for and i will do it." i've never seen a president operate that way. if he had not had vietnam on his shoulder, he would have been on the books as the greatest president. >> we only have eight or nine minutes left. i'd like to look across the arc of time you've served here and ask if you can tell me what your most memorable vote was. >> i can tell you my most memorable bill, and i've had many. my first term, second year in congress, the house and senate have passed a cost-of-living adjustment for retired federal employees. shortly afterward, i received a letter from a constituent saying , i noticed that congress passed this cost-of-living adjustment for retirees. i'm a federal employee. i'm a white house retiree. i did not get an adjustment. why? fair question. it turns out they had their own separate retirement program. it should have been included in a separate provision of that cost of living adjustment. they were not because people did not notice. i introduced legislation. there were 174 retirees. we had just passed this bill. it was a footnote to history. the office of personnel services objected. i said, no, this is the right thing to do. the committee, house, senate passed it, and gerald ford signed it into law. i signed it, sent it to my constituents and said the congress has acted to correct the problem you brought to my attention. a few days later -- quite a few days later, i received a letter his wife saying, my husband received your note. he was so thrilled to know that this had passed. he died the next day. he died knowing that government could work for even one person. >> the moral is, if you have something write your congressman. >> the constitution provides every citizen the right to petition the government. that person petitioned the government and the grievance was redressed. although his widow received the benefit, he didn't receive the benefit, he knew that government could work together for one person. >> you have spent a lot of time in this room. what are you going to miss most? >> i'm going to miss the hearing process, the give-and-take. the seeking of the right answer the seeking of truth. that has been my quest in all my service of congress. i'm going to miss problem solving. i find the most rewarding, most challenging, as with the retiree , or with the problem of a need for a light rail service in the city of minneapolis, where that is a $480 million issue, it is finding a way to make it work, to get it done. that i find the most rewarding part of the public service. >> i was reading a story about you clearing out your office after all these years. lots of history in that space that you've accumulated over these decades. what are you going to do with your papers? have you decided? >> the minnesota historical society director came up to review the files and help me understand what they find useful for history and which things to discard, as did the library of congress. we have separated the documents. committee work has gone largely to the library of congress. my papers, 120 boxes, are going to the minnesota historical society and probably eight or 10 boxes of material that i will find useful in whatever i pursue next are staying with me. >> have you decided what you want to do next? >> i would like to teach at a graduate level and to help shape the thought of the next generation of transportation professionals. i want to continue to be engaged in those aspects of transportation that i have found the most exciting and rewarding, the livability issues, safe routes to school, which i initiated in 2000 and is now a program across the country. changing the habits of an entire generation of children and moving them from inactivity to an active lifestyle and reducing the possibility of growth in obesity. i want to be engaged with the complete streets and the safety issues in transportation. that is quite an agenda. it is much of what has propelled me in the committee work that i've done. >> you leave this institution with an obvious amount of fondness and respect for what can be accomplished. the public view of congress is at one of its all-time lows. what is it going to take to turn that around? >> i think there is the problem with the economy. there is a perception that it just didn't turn around fast enough. in this age of instant communication, where the blackberry sends you a message people get used to that. it didn't turn around overnight. the portion that we did, our committee, i held hearings every 30 days. we can account for 1,300,000 jobs. we should have had twice as much -- 8% of the stimulus accounted for half the jobs created. we should have had three times as much funding in highways and waste-water treatment and taxiways and transit buses. we would have had 3 million people working. it is going to take that turnaround of job creation and some fiscal discipline to bring down the annual deficit and the long-term debt of thefederal government, and that will help to restore the public trust. >> last question, and it is a short one. if you can put a single word to your emotion as you leave this place, what would that be? >> nostalgia. >> and now i need to say, why? >> because i love what i have worked for and accomplished, seeing people go back to work in my district, with a steel or iron ore processing plant that was shut down because of a lack. engaging a steel mill in china to commit and be a

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141231

starts to pump and for once in my life, i go, if i had a damn cell phone. i could call someone. so after that event i broke down and joined the cell phone generation. >> patient -- spaceshipone, that was pressure. >> i had not found the vehicle -- loan the vehicle and 10 months. my flight the second x2 flight would be on a monday morning. the night before sunday night was the first airing of the discovery channel plus program called the black sky and there was two parts to that. the first part was the race to space which was focused mainly on all the effort it took to get the first fight back in june. that was being played out on national tv and when it broke between segments instead of going to commercial, the reporter -- he would interview birds and say the first question was who is the pilot tomorrow? and he would answer that question so miles pushed further and said how do you think it is going to go? i do not know if you know bert but if you have an audience, a crowd, he knows how to work it and now he has got the world stage at his hand. his response and i am at home pacing up and down listening to this. bert's response is not only are we going to head a home run we're going to hit a grand slam. that was the quote. as though the bar was not high enough, here is bert making it more difficult. three things had to happen. you get above the firing line which was 100 kilometers. >> that is considered space. >> that is the new definition. waltz would barely be awake at that point. but that was one big deal. that was the $10 million part. we also then had sir richard branson who went to an's -- invest and he had a multi-$100 million contract ready to go should we demonstrate that not only can we get to space but get there without doing all the twisting in tumbling and turning. >> which mike had done a couple of days before. >> mike's flight was on a wednesday. thursday we kind of thought we figured out what was causing that particular problem which gave me -- thursday night was when it was announced that i was going to be the pilot. up until that point the clever way of doing business the way the chinese had conducted their programs, they leave it to the last minute to tell you who the crew is. on thursday night i find out i am going to be the guy except all the work that i have done to date to keep my hand in the game on the outside chance him again opportunity to fly this little beast of an airplane, now it is all out the window because we need to change it. the way it was changed is it is subtle but it is on the book. and very well explained. staff all night and read it. it is quite entertaining. it takes a lot of orchestration between myself and mission control in dallas to hit the nose of the vehicle pointed 60 degrees as quickly as you could a lot of stabilizer control and took 50 seconds or so to coast from about 60 degrees to about 80. and then the final endgame, the last 20 seconds or so, we would be pulling on the vehicle to get up to about a seven degrees nose up. which in the vernacular, there was some angle of attack flowing across the tale which meant you had better direction of control. this rocket motor that gets a little cranky toward the end of the burn does not try to knock you off course. the rocket motors that we flew back then that we fly now, they are not steered for you. they were fixed in space. they had a blade so toward the end of the turn the thrust line of those rocket motors is no longer along the body axis of the vehicle. it skews off in some direction and now you are in the wispy upper atmosphere aerodynamically trying to counteract that first asymmetry. we figured we could fly to about 150,000 feet before having to shut the motor down to avoid the rocket motor overwhelming the vehicle. we found that we could do a little bit better than that. my flight, i got all the way up to 213,000 feet before shutting the motor down which is about somewhere between 10 and 12 knots. i am just about on a tail stall in terms of aerodynamic control. >> are the pilots are getting this? >> this new procedure, it worked like, it worked great. there was no expectation that it should. we had only had six powered flights in the vehicle total that this was the flight. the previous five had presented problems, difficulties situations that we had not anticipated, thought about understood and we had to -- this does not make sense, we have to change this and do that different. there was no reason to expect that there is the sixth fight that was critical not only for my personal sanity but for that of the team and that of the company and that of richard branson. for the hopefulness of the future of commercial manned spaceflight. that would all work out. we scooted out the atmosphere past the common line, past the old x-15 record set by joe walker. quick she went almost 70 miles. >> it does not sound like much but may be in the city 70 miles is a lot. far from my house does not even get you to l.a.. it is straight up, it is a challenge. and that is what we were doing. that flight did it in spades. >> i know that the wait was a big deal and there was some anecdote where your mother-in-law spilled a 16 ounce soda on you right before you went up. >> your mother-in-law. at the time i was 50. and if your mother-in-law still wants to give you a hug and your mature years in life after the error of marrying her daughter then you take it. and then it is this time of year, it is: the mornings, she had come from the local mcdonald's, she had a large cup of coffee and she is like, she is the same personality as the mother and everybody loves raymond. you know that mother. >> we got it. >> she pushes her way out of the crowd and i am on my way and she comes up and says -- there is this cup of coffee and she is approaching me. i am wondering what the game plan was for this coffee. and her arms sweep around me, it becomes apparent there is no game plan. a beeline, let's do it. it all flows down the front of my flight suit onto my t-shirt. now i am just sopping wet that coffee is freaking hot. >> but it weighs something. >> it was heavily sugared, the knell of by the way. anyways, about a pound. 16 ounces. we had a rule of thumb that we would kill grandmother for pound. >> they had to make this altitude. >> one pound additional weight is about 500 feet of apogee. mike on his first attempt to get to -- the space back in in june had just made it by 400 feet. >> i was reminded by our chief dynamics is that he figured i was wearing a neck for 500 feet of apple -- apogee penalty. it was on that note they closed the space of door and off we go to history. >> is that in your book? >> that is my book. my grandmother -- my mother-in-law is now one of the most amos mother-in-law's and the world because she knows i tell the story. it is all true. it could not have been more disconcerting, this was not a big cabin and us it that door closes, the aroma just overwhelms. that is how we went to space. >> you are up there and you have seen all these pictures and you are a fighter pilot and all the stuff but when you got up that high explain what you felt when you saw that view. i know what was too busy with his stuff to have any emotion but did you have any emotion when you saw that view up there of 70 miles above the earth? >> shame on you. i am here to tell you it is the most fabulous right in the world. riding a rocket motor it's the senses, because that rocket motor went off like an angry bull, like someone slapped the gate open, and you are just trying to hang on for eight seconds. except, you were hanging on to this thing for a minute and a half. it is thundering, shaking kind of experience. we had a gauge that would, we were not sure we would be able to read. the flight controls go from light off the mothership to within eight seconds you are supersonic and the control forces are so high. you think you are moving the stick but you are not affecting anything. then you have to transition to electric trams to control the trajectory. the in game, you're back to flying like an airplane again because the motor wants to adjust the thrust line on you. the magic, and i do mean this, the magic is when you finally turn the motor off. read wonderful things happen. they happen in a blink. the shaking goes away. the shrieking sounds, this big nitrous tank that is 10 feet behind you imaging itself making all kinds of -- it is like a possessed cat behind you. >> i have never heard you say it that way. >> and, then you become instantly weightless. even though you are strapped in, the tension goes away. your limbs, your legs have no weight. your sense of right side up no longer matters. when the motor is burning you are paying attention to the instruments. after, there is nothing much you can do to affect the trajectory of the vehicle you are on. then you get to look out the window, and there is this view you have never appreciated or never seen before. from a hobby, if you have ever been it is one of the most dreary, disappointing -- >> godforsaken places. >> but the view is spectacular. you have the pacific ocean, the mountains, weather patterns they normally only show you on the evening news. of course, the void that is space. separating these extremes is this then blue electric curtain of light. that is the atmosphere. it is the first time you get to appreciate and realize that you are now in space, in a spaceship. that sounds cool to say. i cut the grass, i went to space and a spaceship. you have worked to actually get there. you worked pretty hard physically just to get there. so everything your body feels is wow. and everything you see with your eyes just because they're so much more dynamic than any camera or video is, you take in this vista, is wow. i've told the marketing people at virgin this for years. that they're all going to be out of jobs as soon as they get into business. because it's an experience that's going to sell itself. it doesn't need to be -- you don't need to be coerced into this. people that come out from having had that experience are going to be doing the marketing for them. >> what you just described, i have a ticket on virgin galactic spaceshiptwo. when it flies, will i feel the things you felt? i obviously will be a passenger. i wouldn't be a pilot. but will i feel that rocket burn and the shuddering and shrieking and all that, is it going to be similar? >> absolutely. it might be more intense for you because, as a passenger, you're not in control of anything you're just, you know, along for the ride. anybody can tell you, in an acrobatic kind of airplane there's a huge difference between whether you're making the control inputs to the airplane or sort of reacting to what somebody else is doing. and so i think you become a man of god very quickly. >> i already am. but. >> if i was orchestrating the spaceship, i would have a five-second countdown light after separation from the mothership. and that was the time between they arm the rocket motor and they fire it. >> like a drag racer when they take off. >> in those five seconds, your life is going to be changed profoundly. and then off you go. and it's such a compressed experience. it's not like, you know, you're not days in space, you haven't spent an entire career working your way up the competitive ladder to get there. but you still get all the same benefits, the view, the weightlessness, the experience of riding a rocket motor. in spaceshiptwo, we'll see how it plays out. but it's got a pretty big cabin so you can unbuckle your seatbelt and then you can wrestle with the other -- >> while they're puking? >> well, i don't think puking's going to be a problem. as long as you can reference an outside window an there's plenty of them, you'll do just fine. >> i'll remember that. >> and that's just getting up there. there's still the ride back down which is an entirely different experience in itself. >> what's that like? >> i liken it to, if you're driving a car and it's starting to rain and you get a little splatters of rain drops on the wind shield and if you're driving into the thunderstorm, then the intensity of that rain just, you know, continues to grow. re-entry is very similar. where the rain is actually the noise of the atmosphere against the -- in spaceshiptwo's characters the belly of the vehicle. and you can actually sort of hear it go from a pinging sound to one that just grows and grows in intensity, as the noise level grows, so does the g levels that you feel on your body. but unlike riding a rocket motor, and this is strange to articulate, but it is buttery smooth. you are just getting heavy. so it's like going over niagara falls. you're on your way down, there's nothing stopping you and it continues until the vehicle is in a thick enough atmosphere that once again it's subsonic and once the vehicle is subsonic in this funny configuration, the vehicle just doesn't quite know what it really wants to do. it's sort of in a confused state and so you put the tails back down, you become a glider and now you've got your 10, 15 minutes to breathe again and look at your passenger who's sitting across from you and sort of mentally trying to assimilate to all that has just happened to you in the last hour or so. the majority of the flight on the virgin side of the house is just climbing up underneath the mothership, which is probably from passenger standpoint where the co-pilot is going to have to have a degree in psychology or stress management or stuff like in that. his the concept is different in that from get-go you take off on the runway, under rocket power there's four motors, you use burt ratan designed informationa light them off is he sequentially so you don't get the big jolt. you take off like an airplane and just keep going. >> now i want to get to that. brian worked for many, many years for scaled composites and when spaceshipone was a success and richard branson invested his hundreds of millions dollars into virgin galactic and hiring brian, why did you go over to excorps which is a competitor of virgin galactic? >> my motivation, there were several levels to it. given our friends in the back of the room, i'll just say we had spent close to 10 years trying to develop the rocket motor for spaceshiptwo. and i had read a book some time ago called design in nature. and this book makes the case that if you, for example, take the size, the heart of a rabbit and compare it to the size of the heart of a shark or a lion and an elephant and you plot them all out versus the animal's weight, they'll follow on a curve that is fairly predictable. i mean, there's always a little bit of noise in the data. but they follow this curve. and i just had the sense after 10 years of trying and crying and praying and saying, god, please show us the truth, light, the way for this spaceshiptwo rocket motor, that we weren't on the curve. and that has been the holdup for spaceshiptwo. i'm not a rocket science guy. i felt like my contributions to the program had kind of run its course. here's excorps next door, they've spent their last 14 years of their existence building a rocket motor, a very different type of motor, one that's restartable, which is a remarkable, clever thing to do for a rocket motor. it's reusable, it's gas go, it's standard liquid oxygen. >> it's a proven fuel over the years. >> there's a lot of history out there versus these hybrid motors, but now they were building an air frame around the proven engine. and if you think about the world of aeronautics, when you go to bill a new airplane you first define the power plant that's going to make this thing work. then you build the airplane around it. you don't first build an airplane and then go, well, where's my engine. that's kind of the difference, if you will, between what was going on between spaceship one and spaceship two. and excorp. >> when i drove you at 200 miles per hour in mojave, we made a deal and the deal was i'll take you at 200, you're going to fly me in spaceship two. well, that can't happen now. so should i be sell my spaceship two tick get buying an excorp ticket? >> well, i'll just say this, jim, because sir richard branson has put an awful lot of his own money into making this program work. i believe it will work. it's just taking oodles longer than anybody would have thought. >> tell me about it. >> but on the other hand, you'd be in the quarter million dollar category at this point. >> i bought the $200,000. you. >> any way, you could get two rides for the price of one. >> at excorp. >> at excorp. >> i could save some of my 401-k plan. >> yes, you could, and we'll be sitting side by side. >> just like in the mcclaren on the runway. >> you'll see what i see you'll see all the instrumentation. you won't be in the back -- >> the angelina jolie. >> well, if you're part of that flight, that might be worth it. ( laughter ) >> you know, i need to know, you have this great anecdote about meeting the late neil armstrong and i think this really goes to the heart of neil's character. can you tell us about that time that you guys met? >> so, it was a rather bizarre the way it unfolded, because i didn't realize neil was anywhere near in town. but my wife and i were at disneyland, okay and we had just finished dinner, had come outside, and from about here to the end of the room, 20 yards away whatever, is, there was neil armstrong. and he's standing by himself and there seems to be nobody around him. and i'm just thinking, wow here's an opportunity to just say hi. and i point out to my wife, do you know who that guy is. and there's a saying in life, you never want to meet your heros, because they will just disappoint you. and i had this concern that, you know neil probably gets bombarded with all this kind of stuff, and he is not -- >> that's the odd couple there. >> so, any way, my wife, we went over regardless and under her encouragement and i introduced myself and neil, this was 2007, we had just had a rocket motor accident at mojave. where we had killed three people, sent three others to the hospital. so things were not going well. and any way i introduced myself to neil. neil was gracious enough, i believe, to pretend to know who i was. >> bullshit, he knew who you were. >> as it turns out we were both his dinner party comes out and we end up walking back to the hotel together and as i'm talking to him i just said how bizarre it seemed in this world of glitter and fantasy land of disneyland that we were unable to repeat what alan shepherd had done you know, 40, however long it had been, 45 years ago which was -- >> the sub orbital flight. >> he was the first guy to do that in the mercury capsule. what neil said next just stopped me in my feet. because he turned and looks at me and says, you know, none of this stuff is easy it's all hard, it's all very difficult. just because you've done it once doesn't mean you can do it again. the only way you have a chance of succeeding, the only way you know you're on the right track is if you can come into work in the morning and look at the guy across the coffee table from you and appreciate being there and then he used a word that i've heard out of burt ratan's mouth for 12 years, she says if you're not having fun, you know you're not doing it right and you don't belong in the business. and burt ratan, since the day i met him, since the day i started working for him, always said when ever he got anybody together, was if we're not out here having fun, if we're not enjoying what we're doing, then we're not doing it right, we're not going to be successful, we're going to run into problems, and things will go badly. and here it was coming back on the heels of a rather tragic incident. but nonetheless coming out of now the mouths of neil armstrong, and i was just blown away by it. >> one last question before i open it up to the audience. you mentioned burt rutan. describe the genius of him. you worked with him. the guy is a genius, it amazing what he's able to do. but what is it about him that makes him special? >> well, other than being a smart guy, he latches onto things and he won't let go. and he will wrestle whatever it is until he is squeezed the life out of it, until he understands every aspect of it, and then he'll take that information and if it's in the world of aeronautics and airplanes he'll apply that knowledge to the next vehicle he builds. burt had a common saying that when ever asked what's your favorite aircraft, he would always say the next one i'm going to build. burt and i were also golfing buddies, and before i started working for him for a couple years. and burt took, it was the same way in golf as he was as an engineer. he was tenacious. he practiced. he was competitive. he had in his back pocket these laminated cue cards that would show the loft and carry and roll of the golf ball depending on whether he was hitting out of a san trap the rough, whether it was -- >> never heard this either. >> a 60-degree lofted wedge sand wedge or a pitching wedge. whether it was a half swing, quarter swing, the face was open or closed. i mean it was all there. and this is, that was sort of his nature. he went to extremes other people would not go to, but he was a man of great wit. he enjoyed having fun. he enjoyed pointing out inconsistencies, in other people's behaviors. i went one time with him to singapore, singapore is a little island nation just south of malaysia if you've never been there. and at the time they were doing a tremendous reclamation effort, basically pushing back the china sea so that they can get more land, because they're running out of land, too many people. and burt was invited to talk to this rather large assembly about 1,000 people of bureaucrats military types students, you name it. and his comments to just sort of tip file -- typify his sense of humid oh, he see you'd be far better off instead of this reclamation effort putting these young men into the new f16's that you've just bought from us and going bombing malaysia to the north getting your land that way. you motivate an entirely new generation, you take advantage of hardware that you've spent good money on, and you do it the old fashioned way. and before the crowd could sort of assimilate this, oh my god, did burt rutan just tell us to go bomb malaysia? you know, he had had moved onto other subjects. >> a followup question. >> that's the kind of guy he was, and he was a lot of fun to be around and he currently lives up in kerr da len -- could you da len, idaho. he's building himself a sea plane, and he plans to plans to turn it to one that he can fly around the world without ever visiting an airport, would you having to deal with the f.a.a., with whom he has -- >> mixed -- >> a checkered relationship. so even though he's retired he's still out there having fun and still pushing boundaries, and he's still challenging the way people think about conventional approaches to old problems. >> okay. we're going to open it up for a couple quick questions. anybody have a question for brian? yes, way back there. >> hello, i have a question about burt's relationship with peter of the ex-prize foundation. i'm curious to know hearing you speak about burt's personality peter has a larger than life personality as well. did you see that burt kind of went to the next level after he decided to take on the ex-prize and what was the kind of relationship between those two men? >> you know, these are the kind of questions that if i'm writing it down after maybe the fifth draft i'll get the words just right to where i can weasel my way through. >> this is off the report, by the way. >> any controversy. but you're right. it was a strained relationship, to say the least. but peter was bringing something to the table that was attractive, it gave paul allan about 40% of his money back if we won this thing. it put mojave on the map because we had to become a space port to satisfy the requirements of the ex-prize. it was peter's side of the house, what he did is i think still fairly brilliant. without his efforts i would have had my opportunity, for example i don't believe the vehicle would have gone straight to the smithsonian can that would have been the ebb of it. but i've never met anybody out out -- >> even peter? >> even peter. and burt is a big guy. if he stands next to you, he casts a shadow and he starts sucking the oxygen out of the room. and peter, you know, not a big guy, but it's sometimes it's the little guys that you know, are the go getters. so it was an interesting battlefield. but it ended up being win-win. so it all worked out good. >> one more question because we're a limb behind schedule. anybody else have a question? right here. yes, go ahead, ask the question. >> you're a test pilot. what kind of courage do you need to have in order to be a test pilot? >> it's not about courage. it's -- i like what walt says. fear doesn't really come into play. alan shepherd also off the first sub orbital guy, was a navy admiral, and i think once he realized that he was going to receive his admiralship, he came up with a test pilot's prayer. and i believe this is one that most, if not all live by, and it's a very simple one. and it's got nothing to do with fear or courage. it's dear god, please don't let me f up. and what he really means by that, i think is there's any number of things that can go wrong. there's probably four or five reactions you can take or make that are incorrect that make that wrong thing worse. and there's one maybe right thing. and the prayer is really to say in the event something starts to go askew give me the wisdom and the knowledge to do that one right thing. but it wasn't about fear. and it wasn't about courage. >> she and i are going to go do our sentry feunl training in two weeks. any advice? >> you know, i've neve been there. it's a great experience, they don't start you off at 9g's, or hope they don't. >> but they do get you up no nine g's. >> they can -- up to nine g's. they can. they'll do sort of a half g simulation, and they'll -- we're going to do spaceship two. >> i think they're great people there, and i'm sure you'll have good memories of coming out of it. >> all right, let's hear a big plus for brian binnie. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, form we remember former members of congress who died this year. we start with tennessee senator howard baker. then a speech by vermont senator jim jeffords when he changed party affiliations in 2001. later congressman james traficant addresses congress. and after that an interview with former budget committee ranking member on the 1990 budget deal. the 114th congress convenes in a little over a week. here's a look at some of the numbers. republicans will have 247 members in the house. the largest g.o.p. majority since the 1928 elections. and there will be 188 house democrats. there will be 45 african-americans in the house including two republicans. will herd texas and neil love of utah. the first ever republican african-american woman to serve in the house. the senate will have two african-americans, republican tim scott of south carolina and democrat cory booker of new jersey. >> new year's day on the c-span networks here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern the washington ideas forum. energy conservation with david crane, business mag nailt t. boon pick ends. warren brown, and inventor dean kamen. at 4:00 p.m. the brookline lynn historical society holdings a conversation on race. then astronaut walt cunningham on the first manned space flight. new year's day on c pan 2 just before noon eastern, author hector tobar on the 33 men that were buried in a chilean mine. and richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. then a former correspondent for cbs news, sharl attkisson on her experiences reporting on the obama administration. new year's day on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern juanita abernathy on her experiences and the role of women in the civil rights movement. at 4:00 p.m. brooklyn college professor on the link between alcohol and politics in prerevolutionary new york city. then at 8:00 p.m., cartoonist patrick oliphant draws presidential caricatures. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> next from 2007 former senator howard baker talks about his career and his work in congress. senator baker died at the age of 88, was interviewed by historian richard norton smith for the dole institute oral history project. this is an hour. i would love to know the difference. >> my dad was in the house. i never was. >> the senate that you came into in 1967 -- how to that differ from the senate today? >> honestly, i have avoided answering that question for a lot of reasons. one, because i try not to second-guess those who followed me. the other is, in all fairness, you do not know the senate there. you just do not know. you can lose it in a matter of weeks or months. the real touch, the real understanding of what the senate is like. i avoid trying to do that. i have always said it would appear from outside that things are tougher now than they were. more personal, more confrontational. but i cannot say that because i'm not there. >> describe the senate that you walked into. >> the senate i walked into in 1967 was still a senate populated in large measure by the grand girls and dukes -- e arls and dukes. you had mansfield -- so many who had made a move -- mark for themselves in so many ways. i approached the matter as the youngest member of the senate at that time and the second most junior person in the senate. mark at field was number 100. i was 99. the reason was mark stated that for two days to complete his term as governor. i jumped him by one day. as this day, we referred to each other as 99 and 100. i stood in awe of these people who had been there so long. looking back on it, honestly, i must tell you that has a re tarding effect on a new center -- senator to jump into the mainstream. but i was pretty respectful. i remember when i made my maiden speech on the floor. which all freshmen are destined to do. i went there excessively prepared. carefully prepared. not so on the floor. one democrat and my father-in-law, the republican leader, he was there out of curiosity. but i spoke for 40 minutes. and then i finished. and then derksen came over and said, perhaps in the future, you should guard against speaking more clearly than you think. that was my introduction to the senate. [laughter] >> that was the hazing of new members of the senate. >> now, bob dole comes along a couple years later. >> not much later, that is right. >> did the younger members look out for still younger members? >> not really. >> how were they brought into the fold? >> we all knew dole was. many were surprised that he was elected. i was pleased he was elected. got acquainted with him first off. and we established an early and pretty warm friendship in the beginning. but, no, the older members -- it was more like a sophomore-freshmen relationship than anything else. sophomores are full of themselves, having gone through freshman year. sort of the way it was. but the senate is all about standing seniority or age. not very long before anyone is swimming in the same string. -- stream. but in my time, they developed an early understanding that we were part of this group. we were part of the senate. that is something special. we do not understand what, but we know it is. that continued, i think, until i left. i am not sure it is so now. but i am not there and cannot say. >> you are saying there is institutional loyalty to the senate as a body? >> almost. not loyalty, as such, but a recognition. not a family relationship. the commonality of interests and whatnot. there is little protecting your younger brother. [laughter] >> the republican caucus was different in 1967 through 1969. you had moderate liberal senators. >> that is right. >> how did that work? >> very well. can never dawned on me that it would not be that way. i was not surprised to find that their worse -- were significant numbers of liberal senators. an even greater number of moderate senators. and i would say that when i went there, the liberal and republican senators were probably the majority. but that gradually eroded. began to go away in spades. by the time i left, moderate republicans were a vanishing breed. but that is not going to stay. if the two-party system survives, as i think it will, because i see a resurgence of this complex of different points of view. and i think that is good. >> when dole arrived, did it rough edges? my sense is he was someone who was very much a man of his place. of his culture. of western kansas. very conservative house voting record. how does that, over time, involved in the senate? >> you make an interesting point. dole had a reputation. his reputation of being very tough, very republican. and i guess very conservative. though i do not recall that was one of the hallmarks of his early career in the senate. and that began to wane. he established friendships and relationships in the senate. all those things, that previous image, began to be subsumed by his newer relationships. he fit in. he did not have trouble fitting in to the group. and he did it very easily and effectively. at some point in this interview, i want to tell you a true story about the republicans gaining control of the senate. and that was in 1980. and i was minority leader, about to be majority leader. we were full of enthusiasm. and late at night, as the results came in, i called, who is in kansas. i do not remember where in kansas. i said bob, we have the majority. you are going to be chairman of the finance committee. and he thought for a minute and said, who is going to tell russell law? i thought there were days that nobody told russell law. but that moves right into the role of chairman of the private committees of the senate. he did so effectively. >> that raises a question. i have heard him talk about the difference between the minority and all of a sudden, you realize that you have to govern. it is also, for someone like him , an opportunity to disprove doubters. that you are capable of doing. >> it is. it is really a remarkable transformation. republicans had a big problem with that in the senate because they had not been the majority since 1954, 1956. there is not a single person in the republican caucus who has ever been a committee chairman at that time except strom thurmond, a democrat at the time. so it was a brand-new experience, a learning experience. high level of cooperation between members. but the sudden realization that not only we were the majority but we were responsible for the agenda, the timing, we can focus on what the country, or at least the senate would be concerned about, and just as important, what we are not going to do -- that is a big issue. big deal. for while, i said the president will do that. then, after a matter of weeks it was clear that the republican senate, majority in the senate had it not an equal role of the president, a significant role in setting the national agenda. i remember at the time we first gained the majority 1981, maybe even 1982, i think things were different. we thought of ourselves as equal partners with the white house. and we asserted those views. and we would visit with the president, leadership would, and we would invite the vice president to policy luncheons on tuesday. maybe it is just nostalgia and retrospection. but it seems to me there was a better understanding of the relationship between those branches at that time. that had existed for a long time, maybe ever. but it had a sobering effect on republicans in the majority. they suddenly realized this is our game. you get to run the show. we have to decide what to do. what not to do. >> what you said suggests that kind of relationship could only work because you had a president who would willing to buy into the. >> that is right. maybe it would not have worked with anybody except reagan. >> what was it about reagan that made it work? >> i do not know. except he never looked down on congress. he never ignored the senate. he was always willing and seemed to be anxious to hear what they had to say. it was a remarkable relationship. and the republican leadership -- dole as chairman of the finance committee, ted stevens me would meet regularly at the white house at the president's invitation. we would talk frankly about the agenda. i also seem to recall the candor between the congressional types and the white house was remarkable. i wonder if that is still so. it was certainly so with reagan. and may have been that reagan's personality made that possible. >> clearly not everyone agreed on the original tax cut, budget cut, package. that was reviewed by dole himself. >> you are a kindly person for not recovering -- recalling that when we went to the white house, the president outlined his plan. he was asked about it. the press said, we hear it, we understand it. but it is a riverboat gamble. i caught all sorts of hell about the. the truth of the matter is that is it -- it was a gamble. but it worked. still on the list of things i should never have said. >> dole agreed with you? >> we talked about it. not before, but afterwards. in all fairness, i have to say a good hard about that evaluation of the message was based on what dole and i had talked about. but he was an important influential person, not only in the senate but to me. because -- there is one thing you should know. i had a meeting with the committee of chairman at the leader's office. all the chairman of the standing committees. we invited one freshman to each meeting who, hopefully, just sat there. that was an extraordinarily important thing to me because it was an opportunity for a chairman to say what they have on their plate. what they wanted to do. but that is where i got insights into what was going on and what might go on. that is where i first came to have such a high regard for bob dole's abilities as chairman of that committee. his analysis was good. but maybe even just as important, his presentation was lucid and prompt. it worked out well. >> what qualities make whole a successful chairman? >> i do not know. i was not a member of finance except as an ex officio member. it is undeniably so that personality has a lot to do with success or failure. certainly for a committee chairman. dole, from the very beginning, was a highly successful chairman. not only with the administrative staff and providing for housekeeping details of the committee and also in terms of deciding the agenda of the senate. but the people respected his point of view. not everyone agreed with his point of view, but they respected. i continue to. >> the 1981 tax cuts, budget cuts were, not that they were easy, but relatively easy. i imagine easier to pass then subsequent tax increases. in 1982, where you are basically trying to take the ornaments off the christmas tree. how did that happen? how to the white house feel about taking a step back? >> you know, by that time, a little of the luster had gone out of the republican leadership. they were flexing their muscles here and there. a long way of saying that there was controversy between the white house and the senate. the willingness to disagree with the president or the administration was greater. even so, it was not a hostile relationship. and the fact that the white house and the representatives and the senate and our representatives would discuss these matters with great enthusiasm sometimes helped reduce prospect of controversy within the house and senate. >> one of the things we're trying to get at is what it is that dole did behind-the-scenes that made him dole. i've never really seen it spelled out. beyond that, there is this whole question of what are the tools at their disposal of a majority leader to get desired results? >> the majority leader is not a statutory position. it is certainly not a constitutional position. it is a device created by the senate itself to create orderly and is and dispatch to the operations of the body. i'm told that, early on, before majority leaders were designated, that the chairman of the finance committee or the chairman of the appropriations committee did that. by now, the majority leader is taking on special immunity opportunities. and responsibilities. but the power of the majority leader resides in two things. one is the tradition, the president that, in the case more than one senator seeking recognition on the floor, the chair is obligated to recognize the leader. does not sound like much, but my friend, it is a lot. it means you get a chance to speak first. it means you have a chance, if you everything fails, to adjourn. or try to reason with these people. as a powerful thing. the other is purely by example. i guess it goes back to the human condition that everybody has to lead. everybody has to have a leader someplace. even though it is not statutory or constitutional, that role falls to the majority leader. to agree, the minority leader. when i was minority leader -- as minority leader, there was a special opportunity to go across the aisle to mansfield or bob byrd and say, i know what you are doing. i am sympathetic. but that is not going to work. as long as you have enough to stop it, meeting at least 39 votes, or 44 votes, that you could stop it. both leaders have an important role in recognizing the forms of both leaders but i was first elected majority leader, first one on the floor that day, the first thing i did was go over to bob byrd. i said bob, i will never know the rules and president of the senate the way you do. i will make you a deal. i will never surprise you if you do not surprise me. he said, let me think about it began back later this afternoon and said -- and we never did. i think that tradition is carried on. dole adopted a position as well. it is a good step position, even if i did first abdicate it. the rules are set up so there is plenty of room for disagreement, plenty of room for controversy. and to do so without the framework of the organizations thinking up on your adversary. >> i wonder, did you learn something from watching your father-in-law? >> i am sure i did. he was a great man. he really was. and i am sure i did. but i would be hard-pressed to -- the one thing i would say is that i have a big admiration for them. the relationship between father-in-law and son-in-law was potentially delicate. i have not really run the records, but i believe i may have been the only person in the senate that dirksen never asked to vote one way or the other. and i think that was in recognition and sensitivity of that relationship. but we discussed freely. i asked for his advice, which he gave freely. but you never tried to convince me. i do not think it was rebellion on my part, but an assertion of independence. it worked very well. >> how does this contrast with lyndon johnson in the 1950's? kind of larger-than-life figure. >> all the things about johnson were true. it is interesting to me that dirksen and johnson were not only majority and minority leader but very close friends. and i think that facilitated the operations of congress and the senate, the fact that they could talk freely. and i'm sure agree and disagree freely. but what did i learn from dirksen? i will choose one thing to tell you. i remember i was grumpy about some foreign policy. i have forgotten what it was. i also remember i was traveling with -- who was it? a river golf -- abe rivikoff. we were in the middle east. left in egypt. and we get on the plane. approach the plane. and i made some smart remark about some item of administration policy. and we got on the plane. rivikoff said, howard, i have discovered over the years if i have a criticism of the administration that i save until i get home, both i and the country are better off. [laughter] >> i always thought of that. dirksen said the same thing. he said the president is arriving at andrews. i would like you to go with me to greet him. i said really, senator? i do not want to do that. >> he said, you should. and i did. he said the president is the embodiment of national sovereignty. he is returning from overseas. and we should be there to express our support. not of his issues, necessarily or his positions, but his role as president. or as turks would say, chief magistrate. >> let me ask you. the whole relationship between dole and richard nixon, which is clearly typical, which mystified a lot of people, given the way dole was treated after that in 1972. i have often wondered, if there wasn't an element in their background that was common nixon, this scrappy kid who was not a natural, but through sheer work and effort made himself to be what he wasn't, obviously overcame economically, great odds, there was some kind of cultural identification that he had with nixon. >> i'm sure he did. i never discussed that with dole. but i agree with every word you just said. honestly, dole and nixon had that and other things in common. they are both and were, in nixon's case, great patriots. i must tell you that i am thought of as being instrumental in the downfall of nixon does of my role on the watergate committee. but i continually had an admiration for nixon as president. in so many ways, he was a great center of the road, even moderate, president. but he made one fatal error. it is my private. -- theory that he did not know about the break-in before it occurred, but he found out about it after it occurred. he was in california. his fatal error was that he he came back and instead of lining up those oaks and firing them on television, he decided to contain it. and that case, and i think in most cases, proves to be fatal. i do not know if nixon thought those thoughts or not, but i bet he did. it was a great loss. a great trauma to the country. also a great talent in nixon but it was the right result because he made a fatal political mistake. >> as this unfolded, did you and your colleagues have a sense of astonishment at these revelations? >> daily. dole and i talked about. dole is thought of as closer to nixon than i ever was. but i remember cloakroom conversations between us about that. and the amazement of the things that came out. >> your both amazed? >> i am sure he was. i know i was. but they just called out one after the other. did never ended. terrible time. >> the tapes -- were you astonished when you heard tapes existed? >> honestly, i think every president before him had had some sort of taping system. kennedy did. johnson i was not outraged at that. no. no, i wasn't. but it proved to be the ultimate downfall of richard nixon. i was interested to see now that ronald reagan diaries are being released, have been released but i am astonished ronald reagan kept that diary daily. i saw those diaries. he never let me read them except one case, but those diaries were written in longhand in leather bound books. they weren't loose-leaf books they were leather bound books and there were rows and rows and dozens of them. some day, they'll all be published. it must be the most important important and thorough contemporaneous record of a presidency that's ever existed. >> among other things, it does give the lie to the notion reagan was either lazy or undisciplined because he clearly , was the opposite of both. >> he was the most disciplined person i ever knew, he really was. he would show up every morning at 9:00 on the button in the oval office. when i was chief of staff, i used to be with him at 9:00. we would have a meeting that lasted no more than 30 minutes. he would start each meeting with a funny little story. and it was a meeting or two before i realized when he finished, he expected me to have a funny little story. that was his stock and trade. i treasured that. dole also had that same talent. he can put things in perspective, with humor, more effectively than most philosophers can do it with a serious dissertation and i admire that. >> do you think that's a real weapon in making the senate work. >> a tool, not a weapon, but a tool. it's extraordinarily valuable. and sometimes dole may be criticized as an rapier-like wit. i don't think of it like that but a quick mind that was able to put things in perspective. not everybody appreciated it. if you think back on it, most of the "rapier thrusts" require right on the mark. he still has that sense of humor. >> i always sensed, it sounds like a cliche. i think it's true of dole more than most people, he really never forgot where he came from. he is still at heart, he's still russell, kansas. >> that's right. >> there's an element of the populist in dole, there's a real disdain for pomposity and stuffed shirts bipartisan, the guchi and loafers and the lobbyists. the relationship with reagan, i would be interested to know, you were thinking about running in 1988 yourself. >> that's right. >> obviously, you put those plans on the shelf to become chief of staff. then you had this very unusual situation where the vice president is clearly running and your senate leader is running. how did the president handle that somewhat awkward thing? >> my recollection, richard, is that he didn't handle it at all. [laughter] he just let the chips fall where they would. he showed no preference. he showed no priority between them. i admired that. it was a delicate situation and unusual one. i don't think he ever did anything about it. certainly never talked to me about it. >> your sense is he had a very good relationship with dole? >> oh, yeah, had a great relationship with dole. i do remember the first time dole came to a leadership meeting. before it started, i went down a little early, he invited no do he asked about dole, he did. i don't remember what i said except it was favorable. he was curious about dole. as i recall, he's the only one he asked about. >> really? that's doubly interesting because the story in 1976, was that one of the reasons dole wound up being on the ticket was the people around florida, at least, had been led to believe he had reagan's -- whether that was in fact true or not. >> i have an old friend in tennessee, who has a philosophical statement that i've come to admire. he called me the other day and said, howard, we've reached the age, where most of the things we remember never happened. [laughter] it is more often true than not. >> it's been said -- i've heard it said that in some ways it's more fun to be minority leader than majority leader? >> don't you believe it. i've been both. majority is better. minority leader is interesting it's challenging. it may have fit dole's personality better than majority leader. >> how so? >> well, it did, because he was able to crystalize an issue and formulate a position that would go right to the heart of the issue. as majority leader, he had to take a lot of different opinions of different people and try to set aside the point of view. i must tell you, majority leader is the second best job in washington. i said that to ronald reagan once. he said, no, howard, it's the second best in washington. i said, mr. president, i'm sure that's so in terms of historical standing, but look around. i got a nice office, i have a big staff, i have a car, i have access to an airplane and i don't have secret service and i still have a life of my own. he thought for a minute, says, well, maybe so. [laughter] >> the -- i want to get back into the first reagan term. which was a revolutionary period in this country. almost a u-turn in a lot of ways policy, in the whole relationship of government and economy and an individual. dole was a good soldier. apparently a very effective soldier but he couldn't have , agreed with everything he was being asked to implement, did he? i mean, balanced budgets are almost spiritual things. i assume that's the result of where he came from and what he went through? >> right, right. that's right. no, i'm sure that's true, but the first thing you said that dole was a good soldier is the most important part of the conversation because he was. i cannot tell you that's where he acted against his own native instinct, but i'm sure there were. i can tell you, i never went -- when i was leader, i never went to bob dole and asked him something i felt he didn't want to do and he would respond in the affirmative. he had a heavy understanding of the importance of his role as a senator. he had a clear understanding of the relationship between the senate and the president. he did not confuse the two. he knew of the separation of powers and special responsibilities each had. it's as if he had studied at length and perhaps he had, how these relationships existed in the past, imperfect as they were. he was determined to create a new relationship that would best serve the country. i think he did that in large measure. i think he served as a model for all of us. i know he served as a model for me. >> how so? >> in establishing a willingness to talk to the white house but without feeling it's -- you were in a subordinate role. dole was never in a subordinate role. dole was dole, and nobody doubted that. >> the implication is that the >> the implication is that the dole operating in 1982, 1981 1983 is different from the freshman senator of 1969, 1968 1970? >> it was absolutely different. but that difference is something that happens to all, i think conscientious members of the senate. different after a month or a year, or your first term. as you begin to understand the relationships and responsibilities. and when you're no longer overwhelmed by your own importance. i remember a senator from new hampshire, it may have been my first day in the senate, i was going -- did go into the senate chamber and he was there to greet me, as were others, and he said, howard, can you smell the marble? >> i said, senator, i don't think so, i don't think marble has a smell. he said, yes, it does. once you smell it, you'll be ruined for life. i thought about that a lot. i don't think i ever smelled marble and certainly bob dole never smelled marble. >> conservatives don't like to hear the word "grow" because you know, he grew in office, that means he moved left. can you explain what real growth is and why it does tend to terrify the right? >> no, i cannot. it varies from time-to-time. it's that old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i don't think you necessarily grow to the right. in my own case, forgive me for bringing up my own experience, in my own case, i think i grew to the left. not by design, but by force of circumstance. the panama canal was a good example in my life career. i started out in the mainstream, republican opposition to the panama canal treaty. the more i thought about it and studied it, the more i was convinced i was wrong and i should support it, and i did. for those who care to see, i'll show them the scars and bruises about my head and shoulders. there's some who say -- some in tennessee think i'm a bolshevik. i'm someone who grew to -- >> that's what i mean, growth is almost assumed to be kind of a coopting by the left. >> that's right. dole is certainly regard eded certainly regarded that way by some in the party. what does that say about where the party is going in the last 25 years? >> yeah. well, i don't know. but i think the party is permanent. i think it is not about to collapse. i think its center of gravity will shift and change. i think it's an essential part of our governing mechanism and must endure. >> for example, you both came into this position, dole strikes me, like gerald ford, as a kind of midwest conservative, whose conservativism in many ways is grounded in economics, who had a kind of healthy, you know, healthy skepticism about what government could do particularly overnight, particularly to bring about the millennium. at the same time, a healthy, leave me alone, not a libertarian but basically, , government should probably stay out of the classroom, out of the board room and out of the bedroom. that's not for the public discourse. yet clearly, in your political career, that line has been crossed and conservativism was redefined. how uncomfortable, if at all was that process of having the social issues increasingly come to define conservetism. >> it certainly was important to me and bob dole. the party and country has moved. we owe a responsibility to understand that and respond to it. not necessarily agree to it but to understand that. >> you mention how it has moved. my dad was at the house for many years, and he was adamantly opposed to any sort of federal aid to education either directly or implication. now, it's an article of faith, if you're in the house or senate, you better get our share. it's a big share anymore. it's changed. change, once again, is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant economy and democracy. it will continue to change. i don't know how it will change, it may go forward or backward or sideways. change is not a bad word. and it is inevitable in my view. in terms of parties themselves you hear republicans or are conservative and democrats are liberal. they're neither in my view. their center of gravity will vary from time-to-time, new -- and be conservatives and moderates in one party or the other. those things will change. but the great center still runs america. i don't think it's a mathematical center. i think bob dole understood this more than anybody, it's not a mathematical center, but rather a consensus view that certain things are at the center of our political system. that's what should drive our determination of other more complex issues. >> i remember dole telling me about you and jesse helms. it was a vote -- literally jesse's was the vote, i don't know whether -- but what of those post 1981 tax -- >> i remember. i guess in 'february of '81, the i guess in february of 1981, the first serious challenge i had as the new majority leader, the first republican leader since bill noland of california, the first challenge i had was when we had to vote on a debt limit increase. i assumed that would all go ok i began to count heads, i think howard green came to me and said, i don't believe you will win this. i got a bunch of freshmen senators in the office around my conference table and we talked and carried on. it was clear i hadn't convinced anybody and we were going to lose that thing. as i went out i saw jesse helms. i said jesse, i have a big problem. i don't think i am going to get these new freshmen senators to vote for the debt limit increase. after we voted. he said howard can i talk to them. i said of course. so he came back in, jesse did. jesse helms. they were all gathered there. and he said, gentlemen. i understand you are not going to vote for this debt limit increase the and they said i understand that many of you ran against it. i want you to know i never voted for a debt limit increase. beforehand, ronald reagan is my president and i am going to do it and so are you. and i got all but one. [laughter] but that was strom thurmond did the same thing. your earlier question -- what affected senior service have on the new members. in that case, the one with experience had a profound effect on the outcome of that vote. and without success at that vote, i don't know what our leadership would have been like. >> i remember asking george mitchell if he could describe what it is, whatever quality or qualities, dole had that made him succeed. in the leadership position. he said it was a combination of things but almost a sixth sense about what combination of personalities and legislation change. what mix would work. it's not something you can quantify. it is not something you can learn in a textbook. >> not only that it is not really an intellectual exercise. it is more a personality arrangement. you sort of sense these things rather than hear them or understand them. you sort of guess. but if you guess right, you usually win. >> psychological gift. in some ways. >> not based on a check. it's based on how you evaluate the person's basic views, beliefs, prejudice and his oppositions. but that is the quality of leadership. i think dole had it in spades. >> but that suggests that you get to know all of your colleagues? inside-out? >> you got to know them. it is more than that. it's hard for me to tell you what i think about this. i don't think it is just knowing them. in some strange way you have got to understand. you have got to be able to anticipate what they're going to say on a particular issue. maybe that's too ethereal for this circumstance, but that's what i think. >> that's not something you can teach in a classroom? >> no, it is not something you can emulate. either you have got it and do it or you don't. >> do you sense he was impatient? >> dole? >> dole. >> oh, yeah. he was impatient. ambitious, and sometimes criticized for being over ambitious. i never thought that. >> dan rostenkowski told his story, that oh, gosh, before the budget talks, before the government shutdown. >> the first government shutdown. >> yeah. bill clinton called him. and he said, ok, tell me something about dole. he said, give me a leg up. you know, what are we negotiating. he went on about what a great guy dole was. he is the most impatient man on the planet. he said there will come a time when he -- when he will be so desperate to get out of the room he will just give you whatever you want. that may be an exaggeration. and yet, that's the fascinating thing. that impatience that i saw and yet what you are talking about and what senator mitchell talked about requires an extraordinary amount of patience. to know people. to wait all night. if that's what it takes to bring these things together. >> impatience is a tool. dole was not arbitrary or capricious in his opposition. is grounded in deep conviction on a variety of issues. he is a man who will listen, that is what i would have said. he was a tough adversary. i was surprised that he was elected as my successor. >> when did you decide you were going to run? >> about a year and a half before i -- >> why? >> always felt that being in congress was not a lifetime job. my wife had terminal cancer then. i had to take care of her. so i left. i had no regrets about that. i will always be grateful for the 18 years i served in the senate. but i had no difficulty in leaving. but the question of my successor came to be very interesting. i thought, i think most people felt that ted stevens would succeed. some thought no it will be pete diminicci. others thought this, that, and the other. i don't felt that most anybody felt that bob dole was going to be elected majority leader. >> and why? >> no. i don't know why. that's what i think. and i also remember, you know, i didn't vote. i was not going to be back, but i was there. my role as sitting majority leader. i remember the chairman of the policy committee and thus responsible for the election. i remember when they announced the vote. i think, one vote, two votes. they elected. and he leaned over john green and he said burn the ballots so nobody would ask for a recount. bob dole was a fortunate choice. i congratulated him then. and i congratulate him now. he served with distinction. >> a couple of quick things. is the key job of the majority leader persuasion? >> it is a combination of things. certainly persuasion is part of it, but not the only part of it. it is too complex to define in this brief time, but it is not just persuasion. >> that has great power. the younger members want to get on the agenda or get a particular point across, the majority leader has almost unchallenged authority to deal with that. i cannot remember a single time when i was majority leader that i set a schedule and anybody successfully challenged it. that is a powerful thing. and that may be persuasion, may be intimidation. it is powerful and more than just persuasion. but i would say, yeah, the majority leader is ill-defined not constitutional or statutory, but the second best job in washington. >> when dole was running for president, 1988, and in 1996 decided wrenchingly to leave the senate. it was harder for him to go than you to go? >> i think so, probably. yeah. >> did he ask for advice? >> did he ask me for advice? >> yes. >> >> no. nor would i have volunteered advice. everybody has to make that decision. that is a very personal decision. nobody advised me. i would not have advised dole if he asked. >> how do you think, say, ten, 20 years from now. a generation that for whom bob dole is a name in a history book, how do you think dole should be remembered? what is his -- >> that is a very good question, richard. i have given a little thought to that not because i want to write the history book just because it is a natural thing to think about. i think dole will be remembered first as emblematic of world war ii. and that he shed credit on those who survived the war and those who then went on to be of service in the country. that's no small achievement that is something to be remembered for. as i drive by the new world war ii memorial, i thought about that the other day. he will be remembered not just for the stones and pillars which were originally richly deserved but , he will be remembered as a legacy of that tradition. that's what he will be remembered for. and that the generation that fought world war ii came back and continued their service to the coun [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> wow. you've grown since i've been away. good morning everyone. anyone that knows me knows i love vermont. vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. it was the first state to outlaw slavery in its constitution. it proudly elected matthew lie i don't know to congress not withstanning his flouting of the is he digs act. it sacrificed the higher share of his sons in the civil war than perhaps any other states in the union. and i recall vermont senator ralph flanders' dramatic statement 50 years ago helping to bring to close on the mccarthy hearing a story chapter in our history. today's chapter is of much smaller consequence but i think it appropriate that i share my thoughts with my fellow vermonters. for the past several weeks i have been struggling with a very difficult decision. it is difficult on a personal level but even more difficult because the larger impact in the senate and also the nation. i've been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not i should remain a republican. i do not approach this question lightly. i have spent a lifetime in the republican party. and served 12 years in what i believe is the longest continuous held republican seat in the history. i ran for reelection as a republican just this past fall. and had no thoughts whatsoever then about changing parties. the party i grew up in was the party of george aiken, ernest gibson reaflflanders, and others. these names may not mean much today outside vermont but each served vermont as a republican senator in the 20th century. i became a republican not because i was born into the party but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many republicans stood for moderation, tolerance, fiscal responsibility. their party, our party, was the party of lincoln. to be sure we had our differences in the vermont republican party. but even our more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive. our former governor dean davis championed act 250 which preserved our environmental heritage. and in vermont, calvin coolage our nation's 30th president, could point with pride to his state's willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. aiken and gibson and flanders, proudy and bob stafford were all republicans. but they were vermonters first. they spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders. and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in. for 26 years in washington first in the house of representatives and now in the senate i have tried to do the same. but i can no longer do so as a republican. increasingly, i find myself in disagreement with my party. i understand that many people are more conservative than i am. and they form the republican party. given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them. indeed, the parties' electoral success has underscored the dilemma that i face within the party. in the past without the presidency the various wings of the republican party in congress have had some freedom to argue and influence, and ultimately to shape the parties' agenda. the election of president bush changed that dramatically. we don't live in a parliamentary system but it is only natural to expect that people like myself who have been honored with positions of leadership will largely support the president's agenda. and yet more and more i find i cannot. those who don't know me may have thought i took pleasure in resisting the president's budget or that i enjoyed the limelight. nothing could be further from the truth. i had serious substantive reservations about that budget as you all know. and the decisions it set in place for the future. looking ahead, i can see more and more instances where i will disagree with the president on very fundamental issues, the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions missile defense, energy, and the environment, and a host of other issues large and small. the largest for me is education. i come from the state of justin smith moral, u.s. the senator from vermont who gave america its land grant college system. his republican party stood for opportunity for all. for opening the doors of public school education to every american child. now, for some success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of the public schools. in order to misrepresent of my state of vermont my own conscience and principles i stood for my whole life, i will leave the republican party and become an independent. control of the senate -- [cheers and applause] sorry for that. control of the senate will be changed by my decision. [cheers and applause] i'm sorry for that interruption but i understood it. i will make this change and will caucus with the democrats for organizational purposes. once the conference report on a tax bill is sent to the president. i gave my word to the president that i will not enter that or try to intervene in the signing of that bill. my colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to befriend me any longer. many of my supporters will be disappointed and some of my staffers will see their lives upended. i regret this very much. having made my decision and the weight has been lifted from my shoulders, now hangs heavy on my heart. but i was not elected to this office to be something that i am not. this comes as no surprise to vermonters because independence is the vermont way. my friends back home -- [cheers and applause] my friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. i appreciate the support they have shown when they have agreed with me and their patience when they have not. i will ask for support and patience again which i understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends. i have informed president bush vice president cheney, and senator lot of my decision. they are good people with whom i disagree. they have been fair and decent to me. and i have informed senator daschle also of my decision. three of these four men disagree with my decision. but i hope

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140708

fulfill your purposes by using our senators as agents of your grace. lord, surround them with your favor, as their habes bring honor to you. deliver them from the traps set by their enemies. give them hearts filled with confidence in your prevailing providence, sustaining them with your unfailing faithfulness and love. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i just by chance last night was reading a book, and it had a page in there -- a speech that was given by john mccain, our fellow senator. what senator mccain talked about was some of his experiences in the prison camp in vietnam, where a man by the name of mike christian had spent an inordinate amount of time sewing on the inside of the pajama-like outfit they gave him had wear. he put a flag inside his jacket, his shirt. and this jacket was discovered -- the flag was discovered by the prison officials, and he was beaten really very, very much. he was beaten severely. and of course they ripped that out of his coat. we take for granted our saluting the flag. we come in here and we do it every morning, we stand and do t and i a i'm not so sure we shout think a little more when we salute the flag. i'm going to bring that from home, and i'm going to put it in the congress copping for ive to sigh -- in the "congressional record" for everybody to see, what people who have been -- for example, senator mccain was in prison for five and a half queers. -- for five and a half years. as we know, on many different occasions he was tortured. so when john mccain salutes the flag and when mike christian, a fellow pilot, he was actually a navigator on the airplane -- when fellow airmen salute the flag, it means a lot. so i'll put that in the record tomorrow. i read that last night late. i thought, you know, when we salute that flag, we should think about it more thain than m sure we do all the time. mr. president, i would note that following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the final 30 minutes. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2363, the bipartisan sportsmen's act, postcloture. senate will recess from 12:30 to 2 fiv:15 today. the ask that the majority leader control the time from 2:15 to 3:15. and the republicans control the time from 3:15 to 4:15. the presiding officer: there objection? without objection. mr. reid: it is no secret that the senate as of late has been beset by partisan rancor and obstruction. one republican filibuster and then another and then another and still other filibusters. that's why the legislation that is before us today represents a rare opportunity for the senate, a chance for this body to complete work on a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. senator kay hagan's sportsmen's bill is popular with democrats and republicans around the country and for good reason. 40 million americans who hunt and fish stand to benefit. thithis combines some 20 bills important to the sport sportsmes industry. mr. president, in nevada over 200,000 people hunt and fish every year. it is good for tourism. people come to nevada to hunt for game, antelope, elk, bighorn mountain sheep, big horn desert sheep, mr. president. we have wonderful fishing. we don't have a lot of lakes and rivers, but what we have is really terrific. flag fishmen come from around the country to fish in nevada. to nevada, it is a $1 billion industry. i was talking to my friend, the senator from colorado, senator bennet, and senator bennet said today that in colorado it's a $4 billion industry. i would bet even as a heavily populated state like new jersey, i bet there is a lot of hunting and fishing that goes on there that's good for the industry. senator hagan's bill foster's hunting and fishing. because of her efforts, her bill is sponsored by 25 republicans and 19 democrats. this legislation also enjoys the support of more than 50 national sportsmen and conservation groups all over this country. as benjamin disraleli said, "the secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes." this bill is ready. the opportunity is now. now is the time to consider and pass this legislation. our success in moving this legislation will depend on the cooperation of all senators putting aside political games and disputes over amendments in order to pass a bill that will benefit millions of americans. this is a bill that is as much a republican bill as it is a democratic bill. so why should this bill be killed for procedural reasons? a bill that they worked on for many, many years. so i'm hopeful that through bipartisan support we can get this bill over the finish line, as we were able to do with the child care and development block grant earlier this year and the workforce and innovation act just a few weeks ago. i ask my colleagues to respect the hard work of those who put this measure before us and allow this measure to pass and quickly. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: just for the information of my friend from vermont, we had anticipated after my remarks going to the comments of senator alexander and senator corker in connection with the life of senator howard baker, and so i'd like to ask consent at this point that the senator from tennessee follow my remarks on senator baker. the president pro tempore: reserving the right to object -- and i shall not, of course, because as i told the president in vermont last week, i had the privilege of serving with more than ten leaders in both parties since i've been here. it is impossible to find a finer leader than howard baker. i considered him a senator's senator and one of the finest people i've ever served with, so of course i will wait. and i'd ask to amend the conseno amend the unanimous consent, that following the remarks of the minority leader, the two senators from tennessee, i then be recognized for my rather,. the presiding officer:ed leader'leader's -- will the lear modify his requests? without objection. mr. mcconnell: first, a few observations about obamacare. it may not have existed in the english language just a few years ago, but in short order it's become a word for broken promises and almost cartoonish inefficiency. it is no wonder why. you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, premiums will go down, the law will create millions of jobs. we knew the promises wouldn't hold up. many of us said so. one even earned the dubious distinction of being declared "the lie of the year." that's why it's so hard to trust so much of what the obama administration claims about obamacare these days. like back in december when administration officials issued another promise, that they'd make sure that any taxpayer-funded obamacare subsidies would go only to enrollees who'd actually qualified for them under the law. we wanted this assurance not only because so many other promises had been broken, we wanted it because eligibility j.f.k. is so important -- verification is so important. middle-class taxpayers are feeling enough pain from this law already. they shouldn't have to subsidize inaccurate or even fraudulent obamacare claims on top of all the rest. so i've helped pass a law that required a nonpartisan watchdog to keep an eye on the procedures that the administration claimed would protect taxpayers to see how they were working and then report back to us, to congress. well, last week that watchdog, the inspector general, issued the first two reports on the issue, and it turns out we were pretty correct to be worried. the inspector general concluded that the administration was only -- was often ineffective at verifying such basic details about obamacare enrollees, as their citizen status, their income, their social security number, and whether or not they were even eligible -- eligible -- to purchase obamacare in the first place. the administration, the inspector general reported, didn't even follow its own eligibility verification procedures in many cases. anthe inspector general also discovered nearly 3 million inconsistences in the information obamacare enrollees provided in their applications. nearly 90% of which couldn't even be resolved because the necessary software -- the necessary software wasn't even operational. it's completely ridiculous. and the administration is still struggling just to get a handle on the problem. computer systems that should have been ready to go last october have not been built yet. it iit is the kind of thing urda expect to see in a lesley nielsen movie, not in life. worse still, administration officials are indicating that they're going to keep chugging ahead with their deeply flawed verification practices even after everything the government's own watchdog uncovered. many individuals enrolled with the current flawed enrollment process will automatically be enrolled for the same taxpayer subsidies next year. they're defiant -- defiant -- in the face of all this. well, this is precisely the kind of flippant attitude that's so infuriating many of our constituents. many predicted these problems would be the outcome of giving government such expansive power over a huge segment of our economy. of course you're going to have massive inefficiency and probable fraud and migraines for middle-class families that already have enough to deal with. of course you're going to have all this. it seems inevitable. that is why republicans say we need to start over with actual health care reform, reform that can increase the access to care without resort to go this government centric approach. obamacare is built upon the lazy idea that we can build upon an outcome into existence, we can tell a hulking federal bureaucracy to bureaucracy -- bureaucratize health care into being. life doesn't work that way. reality intervenes, just as we've been seeing in washington the past few years, pain that will continue until democrats join with us to enact a serious bipartisan solution which dispenses with the failed policies of this administration. and yet, that's exactly the opposite of what we've seen from our friends on the other side so far. instead of working with us to solve massive problems like the ones the inspector general identified, democrats here in washington are simply hiding from the issue altogether. they're trying to change the subject, even hinting at it prompts the democratic majority to shut down the legislative process altogether. they canceled committee markups, they blocked votes and amendments. they won't allow the senate to consider numerous bipartisan house-passed bills that would address some of obamacare's most glaring problems, even when a bipartisan group proposes a plan to address a flaw in the law that's reducing incomes for working families, they reject it. instead they schedule show votes designed to inflame one group or another. as for the president, he's traveling around the country this week to give campaign speeches, not working with congress to help middle-class families struggling under the weight of his policies. the democratic plans seems to be double down on the mess they created and hope americans can be distracted enough to forget about it come november. if that's the plan, it's not going to work. middle-class americans know who has been standing by their side through this entire obamacare fiasco, who has been against them serving as a shield for the president and the hard left. it is not too late for democrats in washington to work with republicans to address the massive problem they created and if they truly care about the millions they hurt already with this law, it's time to do just that. now, mr. president, i want to pivot to another matter. the senators from tennessee and i had an opportunity a week ago today to attend the funeral of senator howard baker who led the senate republicans for eight years and was a truly wonderful american. actually it was just an honor to attend his funeral down in huntsville, tennessee, a town of 1,248 souls that senator baker often referred to as the senator of the known universe. it was a wonderful tribute and it carried a lot of lessons about the work we do here. senator corker was there too, and i'm sure he felt the same way. just before the funeral, he note that had senator baker was the kind of person who seemed to evoke wisdom in everything he did. i was glad to hear the two men got to spend some time together a few months before senator baker passed away. anyway, the real highlight of the funeral for me was the magnificent, absolutely magnificent eulogy by senator alexander. it captured not only the closeness of their friendship but also the qualities that made senator baker such an important figure. this morning i'd like to take just a moment to thank senator alexander for those thoughtful words and at this point insert his eulogy into the record. i ask consent that that be done. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to share some of his observations about senator baker because, as i said, i think they're important, timely lessons about the purpose and potential of our service here. one of the things that stands out in all the tributes to senator baker, including senator alexander's, is the way in which he embodied the rare trait of taking himself lightly even as he took his duties seriously. i'll give you an example. one of the time-honored traditions around here is for new senators to labor over their maiden speeches as if pericles himself was standing in judgment from the presiding officer's chair. senator baker was no exception. his maiden speech was long, thoughtful, and dense. so much so that when he asked his father-in-law, then-senate republican leader everett dirksen for his reaction, dirksen said in his remarks, "howard, howard, perhaps you should occasionally enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thought." it was the kind of comment that might have stung a lesser senator, but as senator alexander pointed out in mentioning that last week, baker was a quick learner. about a week or so later, howard rose again, this time to challenge one of his democratic colleagues to a game of tennis. the senator in question had just taken a swipe at the vigor of his republican colleagues, particularly the new ones, and senator baker decided to rise to the challenge, tongue formerly in cheek. it was a star performance. the senator that baker challenged even interrupted him at one point to suggest that it was one of the best maiden speeches that has ever been delivered in this chamber. evidently he had missed baker's actual maiden speech, but senator baker's legendary ability to adapt was now firmly established and it set the tone for a two-decade run in which he'd be called upon to deploy his many other talents and skills to defuse tensions, resolve conflicts, repair trust, build consensus, and, frankly, just to put people at ease. because sometimes in this business there's nothing more important than just that. to just keep the bearings oiled. we've all been recently reminded of how senator baker put his own ambitions aside to help rebuild the reagan white house after iran-contra. it was a great testament to his values and to his feel for priorities. what senator alexander reminded us last week was that his former political rivals -- baker and reagan -- started every day in the white house together just telling each other a little story. they had no problem putting their past disputes behind them and building a close working friendship based on mutual respect, common purpose, love of country, and of course good humor. they were adults, busy about serious business, and they conducted that business with dignity and with grace. the larger point here is that while people talk a lot about the importance of having political skill in washington these days, the importance of temperament can't be overstated. the way that senator baker conducted himself here and in the white house is he -- is eloquent testimony of that. it's not that he was laid back, as senator alexander put it, behind baker's pleasant demeanor was a restless ambition that would propel him to the heights of american politics and government for 40 years. but he could subordinate that ambition when he felt the moment or the country needed him to. he was persistent about achieving a result but never insisted that his way was the only way to do it. it's a quality that required an ability to listen. in baker's case that meant being an eloquent listener, a trait that senator alexander put above all the others in baker's formidable arsenal. here's how senator baker himself once put it. it's a difference between hearing and understanding what people say. you don't have to agree but you have to hear what they've got to say. and if you do, the chances are much better you'll be able to translate that into a useful position and even useful leadership. and senator alexander pointed out howard baker had courage. he helped round up the votes to ratify the panama canal treaty, even though he must have known it wouldn't help him much in a republican primary for president, to put it mildly. and when the integrity of our politics was at stake, he didn't hesitate to take on a president of his own party in a very public way, an impulse that one hopes lawmakers in both parties could muster today if the integrity of our system called for it again. but perhaps most importantly of all, howard baker was grounded. he had an important job to do, and he did it well. but he also kept a healthy distance from his work. there's a photograph from president reagan's inaugural in january 1981 that illustrates the point. just behind the new president, you can spot the speaker of the house, tip o'neill, and the new vice president george bush, and then right there between them is a man holding up a camera to capture the moment. it's the new senate majority leader standing there like an ordinary spectator with a really good seat. it was howard baker. senator alexander summed up baker's groundedness this way: "howard baker" senator alexander said, "never stopped sounding like where he grew up. senator baker was a fixture here for decades, but huntsville was always home. and perhaps that's also why senator baker took his stewardship of the senate so very seriously. he knew he wasn't going to be around forever, and that meant he had a duty to make the senate work and to preserve it as a place where disputes and disagreements are sifted and sorted out and where stable, durable solutions are slowly but surely achieved. it it's how he earned the nickname the great consul educator. when dan quayle was senator here, he tiewfd say there's -- was senator here, he used to say there's howard baker and then there's the rest of us. over the past week we've been reminded of why that was. and i want to thank senator alexander for helping us remember why his friend and mentor meant so much to this country and this institution. may the memory of howard henry baker inspire us to be our best selves and even better senators. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 and the republicans controlling the second 30. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i believe it's correct that senator corker and i, before morning business begins, have a few minutes to reflect on senator baker. the presiding officer: that understanding is correct. mr. alexander: that is correct? the presiding officer: the senate is under morning business right now, but the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent that before morning business begins, that senator corker and i be permitted to reflect on senator baker. well, i don't see why it should count against it. mr. president, i ask consent that we have a few minutes to speak about senator baker before morning business begins. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i am not going to object because we have an understanding. but i would like to have a similar amount of time to reflect on senator alan dixon who passed away over the weekend after the senators from tennessee have paid homage to senator baker. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy of the senator from illinois. i want to thank senator mcconnell from kentucky for his remarks. one other thing i said at the funeral for senator baker was that senator baker had an eye for talent. and i remember in 1969, when i was a young aide in the nixon white house, senator baker came to me and said, "you might want to get to know that smart young legislative assistant for senator marlow cooke, and that young legislative assistant was mitch mcconnell." and so i did get to know him. i want to thank senator mcconnell for coming to the funeral and i want to thank senator reid, our majority leader, for being there as well. they were there at the front of that small church in huntsville, tennessee. and the vice president came. set there, met ive, showed his respect both to former senator baker and his wife, former senator nancy kassebaum baker, and we tennesseans appreciated that courtesy by the vice president, the majority leader, and the minority leader very much. there were a number of others there. a governor was there. senator corker and i, of course, were there. former senators torch son thomp, senator frist, senator bennet johnson were also there. our former governors, win field dunn and don sundquist, former senator bill brock was there. it was a small church but, along with former vice president al gore and the current vice president and the majority leader as well as the minority leader, it had real respect for the former majority leader of the senate. i will not try to repeat what i said at the funeral. it was privilege for me to be asked by the family to speak. but i did want to make two comments briefly, one personal and one about the senate. the personal one was -- and i said there that i had tried to follow the rule in lamar alexander's little plaid back that when invited to speak at a funeral, remember to mention the deceased more often than yourself and to talk more about baker and my relationship with him. i waited until the end of my remarks to try to do that. no one had more influence on my life than howard baker. came here with him in 167. senators dealt main i.ly with one know, not through staff members. i came back in 1977 when suddenly he was elected republican leader on his third try by one vote, and i worked in the office that's now the republican leader's office for three months, helping him find a permanent chief of staff until i went back to tennessee. and throughout my entire public life and private life, no one has had more effect on me by virtue of his effort to encourage me as well as many other younger people who are working there way up in a have a right-of-ways, but as an example for how to -- for how to do things. my advice to younger people who want to know how to become involved in politics is find someone whom you respect and admire and volunteer to go to wrorworkfor them and do anythinl they ask you to do. i had the great privilege of working with the best. now, as far -- and just to give one small example of how closely intertwined our times have become, i have the same office he had in the dirksen office building. i have the sphai same phone nume had. if he open this desk, you'll see the names baker, fred thorchtion and my neigh. i thought a remarkably effective presentation at the funeral was by martha ann fairchild, minister of a small presbyterian church in huntsville. she told a story about light bulbs and senator baker. he was on the session of that church. that's the governing body. he was an elder, and he insisted on coming to the meetings. and she said at one of the meetings the session -- the elders and there probably aren't -- i don't know how many members there are of that church, maybe 70, maybe 100 -- they fell into a discussion about new light bulbs and it was pretty contentious and eventually they re-coved it because senator baker insisted that they discuss it all the way through to the end. and should i talked with him later. he said, i could have pulled out my checkbook and written a check for the new light bull, but i thought it was more important that the he would verse a full and long discussion, so they all could be comfortable with the decision that they made. that story about light bulbs is how howard baker saw the united states senate, as a forum for extended discussion where you have the patience to allow everyone to pretty well have their say in the hopes that you come to a conclusion that most of us are comfortable with and, therefore, the country is comfortable with it. he understood you only govern a complex country such as ours by consensus. and whether it was light bulbs or an eight-week debate on the panama canal where there were 200 contentious amendments and reservations and arguments, you have that discussion all the way through to the end. it is said that these days are much more contentious than the days of howard baker. there are some things different today that make that sort of discussion more difficult. but we shouldn't kid ourselves. those weren't easy days either. those were the days when vietnam veterans came home with americans sphitting on them. those were the days of watergate. those were the days of social security going bankrupt and an eight-week contentious debate on the panama canal. those were the days of the equal rights amendment. those were difficult days, too. and senator baker and senator byrd on the democratic side were able, generally speaking, for the senate to take up those big issues, have an extended discussion all the way to the end and come to a result. most of us, mr. president, in this body have the same principles. they all belong to what we call the american character. they include such principles as equal opportunity, liberty, e pluribus unum and most of our conflicts are about resolving those principles. if you're talking about imgrairks you have a debate between rule of law and equal opportunity sometimes. so how do we put those together and how do we come to a conclusion? howard baker saw the way to do that. as bringing to the floor a subject, hopefully with bipartisan support, and talking it all the way through the end until we were comfortable with the decision. and his aid in that was, as senator mcconnell said, being an eloquent listener. that's why he was admired by members of both parties. one poll in the 1980's, he was considered to be the most admired senator by democrats and by republicans. that's why dan quayle said, there's howard baker and then there's the rest of us senators. so i think the memory of howard baker, the lesson for him is that without assigning any blame to the republican side or the democratic side, we don't need a change of rules to make this place function; we need a change of behavior. and howard baker's behavior is a pretty good example. whether it was the panama canal, whether it was fixing social security, whether it was reagan's tax cuts, or whether it was resolving whenl and ho wheto buy new light bulbs in the presbyterian church in hunt huntsville, tennessee. i would like to place in the record the remarks of the pastor of the first presbyterian church of huntsville, tennessee, as well as two other documents, one by arthur b.kuldehouse srn, president reagan's counsel, and who howard baker said to cull have a house that in the president truly did not know about the diversion of iran arms sales proceeds, he was to help, if he did not truly, truly know. then an article by keel hunt about senator baker and finally the order of the funeral service of worship at the baker ceremony. i thank the senate for this time and i yield the floor. to my colleague from tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection, the items will be printed in the record. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i'd like to join our distinguished mitch mcconnell in seconding the comments about the presentation in the senior senator from tennessee made at the howard baker made. you know, it is a great privilege for us to serve in this body, and while times are tough relative to our ability, our willingness to solve some of the major problems, many of the major problems of our nation today, and sometimes there are comments made about serving in the senate. what i say to people back home is that if any of us ever forget what a privilege it is to serve, we should go home. and that privilege allows us to meet people and to be in conversation with people like howard baker that affect us and calls us to be better people. they also allow us, lamar, to witness what took place last week. i'll have to say that i've seen you on many occasions say and do things that i thought were impressive. i don't think i've ever seen anything that measures up to what was said in that small presbyterian church last week. i think all of us were touched. i will say that you had a lot of good material to work with and that you were describing a man that probably has had more effect on -- in a positive way on tennessee politics and in many ways national politics like howard baker. he was an inspiration to all of us. when we were around him, his graciousness and humility caused all of us, i think, to be much better people. his encouragement, especially when dealing with tough issues, his encouragement, his calls, i think calls to all of us to want to strive even harder to be better senators and better people. so i certainly cannot give the comments without eloquence that you gave last week and certainly the ones you just gave. i know that you and he were very, very close. and he impacted you more than any person outside your immediate family. but he had an impact on all of us. he had an impact on this nation. and i'll just -- i just feel it is a great privilege and honor to stand with you today to acknowledge his greatness as a person, his greatness as a senator, many times we see presentations, as people talk about someone's life, and a lot of times that is embellished. i will say in this case none of it was. it was all about the man, both serving here in the senate but also serving in that small church in huntsville, tennessee, that he was so loyal to. so i just want to yo thank you r the opportunity to serve with you. i know that each of us strives to carry out those characteristics that howard baker so wisely showed us. and i do agree with you that the united states senate would be a much better place if all of us could embody those characteristics most of the tiesm so wittime. so, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, thank the senior senator for his leadership and his comments. and i want to thank our distinguished minority leader. during a time of great busyness in his own personal life, for taking the time to be a part of something that i think it was meaningful to him also. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have been moved by the comments of the senators regarding senator baker. the story that the senior senator from tennessee told of the light bulbs is -- it those of us who knew senator baker could well understand that, a man who brought senators together from both parties. i'll tell two very quick stories. one, he was referencing one leadership race by one vote. he had called a good friend of his who was at home on official business and said, i know the press says i'm going to lose this race, but i know you're voting for me. can you come back and vote? and that senator did. that senator was the then-senior senator from vermont, robert stafford. and he flew back, got to the caucus to vote for his friend howard baker, the first one by one vote. all the rest by acclamation. i know this because both bob stafford and howard baker told me that story. and they also were two of the finest senators i ever served with. both people tried to work things out. my other story was, we were going to be in session until midnight one night, a tightly contested matter. senator ted stevens and i and a few others went to see howard baker who was majority leader to talk about the issue that was dividing things. we said we think we have a solution. we've all been talking, we can work it out but it's going to take some time with the drafting. can you just recess. don't stay until midnight. all it's going to do is exacerbate tempers. come back in the morning, we'll have it all worked out. we'll get this done. senator baker knew that we're all senators in both parties who kept their word. he said of course. we recessed. as the senator from tennessee knows, we have cloakrooms here in the back of this chamber. if we have late-night votes, most of us are hanging around the cloakrooms between votes. at that time they had beautiful stained glass windows in the alcoves. we recessed, went home. an hour or so after we went home a bomb went off out here in the corridor. we came in here the next morning, this place looked like a war zone, shards of glass from those windows and both cloakrooms were embedded in the walls. the door to where the distinguished republican deputy leader has his office now was blown in, the fan, window was ruined. paintings out here were shredded. some of the marble busts of former vice presidents were damaged. you could smell the gun powder or the explosive when you came to work. i mention this because the former leadership was if we could get together and work things out, he preferred we do that, and he would encourage, both republicans and democrats. and because he could rely on those of us, again both republicans and democrats, we would keep our word, he agreed to that. and we knew he'd keep his word. i know how many lives of senators were saved that night because of that, how many would have been terribly injured. and then of course our staffs who worked often long after we've gone. how many people? how many people could have been harmed if it hadn't been for the fact that the senate was a different place, and i believe a better place. but i say this not so much to tell historical stories, but i say this out of my great respect for howard baker. somebody calculated the other day that i served with 18% of all the senators since the beginning of this country. i put my tiny handful of the best, howard baker is in there hands down. a wonderful, wonderful man. he was a senator's senator. he believed in the senate. he believed what a privilege it was to serve here. he believed that the senate could be the conscience of the nation. and so i appreciate the tributes. my dear friend, the senior senator from tennessee, who i knew as governor and cabinet member, we've always had a good personal relationship, i listened to his tales of howard baker; quite a picture, as his colleague from tennessee. i thanked him for doing that and i thanked him for adding to the history of the u.s. senate by doing it. mr. president, if i might on another matter, and i would ask consent that the distinguished senior senator from illinois be recognized once i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, everyone knows the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. i have been an avid photographer since i was a child. i have a strong sense of that. so i thought i'd provide a few examples today because sometimes words aren't enough. i've often spoken about the horrific toll on civilians from land mines. these tiny exploa sirvetion about the size -- explosives, about the size of a hockey puck or can of soup can kill a child or blow legs or arms off an adult. and they're triggered by the victim. unlike a gun that a soldier aims, a gun that aims at the target. land mines wait for the victims. oftentimes they wait long after the war is over, long after the soldiers have packed up and left land mines wait for their victims. it could be hours, days, weeks, often years; but however long it is after they are scattered beneath a layer of sand or dirt they explode when an unsuspecting person whether a combatant or an innocent civilian steps on it or triggers it with a plow or wheelbarrow or bicycle. and that person's life is changed forever. in many countries where there are few doctors, land mine victims bleed to death. those who survive with a leg or both legs gone are the lucky ones. this girl is an example of who i'm talking about. we don't know her nationality, but the picture tells a lot. she's learning to walk on artificial legs. her life has been made immeasureably harder because of a land mine that probably costs less than $2. i have a granddaughter not much older than that. these photographs tell a similar story. none of these people are combatants. each are facing lives of pain and sometimes in their communities stigmatization because of weapons that are designed, planned, created to be indiscriminate, not to go after armies. to go after civilians. the leahy war victims fund has helped some of them, as this photograph taken in vietnam shows. i'm proud of the leahy war victims fund. my wife march -- marcel and i have traveled all over the world to see where it might help. i wish, mr. president, that there was no need for it, because there would be no land mines. over the years, at least as people around the world became aware of the land mine problem, they took action. the united states senate was the first legislative body in the world to ban exports of antipersonnel land mines. i'm proud of writing that amendment. other countries soon followed our example. i get calls from parliamentarians in other countries saying we passed the leahy anti-land mine amendment. it's filled me with pride. but then others who really pout, like canada's former foreign minister lloyd exworthy. they put together an international treaty that outlawed the weapons in 161 countries who joined that treaty. i regret the united states, of all the nato countries, is the only one that's not joined it, even though the u.s. military has not used anti-personnel mines for 22 years, despite two long wars. on june 27, though, the obama administration finally took a step. it's an incremental step but it's a significant one to put the united states on the path to join the treaty. although the u.s. has not produced or purchased anti-personnel mines since the 1990's, the white house announces as a matter of official policy it will no longer produce or otherwise acquire anti-personnel mines. nor will the pentagon replenish its stockpile of mines as they become obsolete. our closest allies and many others around the world welcome this step, something they did years before. they welcome it even though it falls far short of what supporters of the treaty are calling for. but they did see it as a first step. but one senior member of the house of representatives immediately accused president obama of ignoring u.s. military commanders, some of whom have defended the use of land mines, just as the military defended poison gas a century ago, when nations moved to ban it. this member of the house said the president -- quote -- "owes our military an explanation for ignoring that advice. this decision represents an expensive solution in search of a nonexistent problem." another member of our body, of the senate, called the announcement a brazen attempt by the president to circumvent the constitutional responsibility of the senate to provide advice and consent to international treaties that bind the united states. while these are strong words, they make great sound bites for the press. but it sometimes happens with sound bites, the truth lies elsewhere. over the years the white house has consulted closely with the pentagon, including about this decision, and the policy just announced simply makes official what has been an informal fact for at least 17 years to three presidential administrations. it also ignores the fact the u.s. has neither joined the treaty nor has the president sent it to the senate for ratification. having not joined it or sent it to the senate, the president has obviously not circumvented the senate's advice and consent role. it ignores that every one of our nato allies and most of our coalition partners renounced anti-personnel mines as have dozens of countries that could ever dream of having a powerful modern army like we do. countries that look at the united states as the most powerful nation on earth, but they felt they could get rid of their land mines. and the naysayers' argument is simple. it goes like this, the united states is no longer causing the misery captured in these photographs so why should we join the treaty? does that mean they also oppose the rights of persons with disabilities, like the crippled in this photograph? or do they oppose the chemical weapons treaty and every other treaty dealing with international relations that the united states has joined since the time of george washington. does the fact that we're not causing a problem, that we do not use land mines or chemical weapons absolve us from having the responsibility to be part of an international treaty to stop it? of course not. the world looks to the united states for leadership, and we ought to show leadership. if the u.s. accepted that argument in 1992, if the u.s. had accepted the argument now being made in 1992, this body would never have voted for my amendment to ban the export on land mines. they voted 100-0, the most conservative and most liberal members, they voted to ban the u.s. exports of anti-personnel mines. our mines weren't causing the problem around the world at that time, but i suppose those in the house who criticize president obama today would say the entire senate was wrong 22 years ago. those 100 democrats and republicans who voted back then to ban u.s. exports of antipersonnel mines understood that while the u.s. may not have been causing the problem, we have to be part of the solution. the same holds true today. in 1996, president clinton called on the pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines, whether they are technological or doctrinal alternatives. he was commander in chief, but the pentagon largely ignored him. but now 18 years later it needs to be done. not at some unspecified time in the future, but in a reasonable deadline, because it can be done. i'm not so naive to think a treaty will prevent every last person on earth from using land mines. i visited too many land minefields in parts of the world to think that. but, people use them. they pay a price for using them. bashar assad used poison gas which violates all treaties, but look at the political price he paid. are those who oppose the land mine treaties so dismissive of the benefits of outlawing and stigmatizing a weapon like i.e.d.'s that pose a danger to our own troops if we go to another country or our humanitarian people. look at the troops that were sent to bosnia recently after flooding because the land mines that are there, we knew before the flooding where they were, but now we don't know where they were. our people over there are putting their lives in danger to help clear them off. so ra so rather than oppose a treaty, why not support the mine-breaching technology that need to protect themselves. mr. president, i always come abouback to the photographs. i've met many people like these. they're -- they may not be americans. but what happened to them happens to thousands of others like them each year. you know, the united states can help to stop that. that's a moral issue. let's speak to our basic morality and do it. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. -- the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, yesterday at 6:00 p.m. on capitol hill there was a gathering at a nearby restaurant known as the monocle. it was a gathering of former staffers ostaffers of united sts senator alan dixon of illinois. they picked the monocle because he would have picked it. it was his favorite place on capitol hill, and it was a sad day because senator dixon had passed away sunday morning in fairview hate heights, illinois. his staff gathered at the monocle the next day which would have been his birthday to toast him and pay tribute to a great boss, a great friend, and a great senator from the state of illinois. senator dixon passed away in his sleep in the early hours on sunday morning. his son jeff had dropped him off at hope and threfs with his wife jodie when he passed away. so instead of celebrate ago birthday on monday, we had a day of remembrance of an extraordinary public servant for the state of illinois. laialan dixon used to be known n political circles as "al the pal." and he loved it. it really described him. for him friendship and loyalty were everything. and it showed in his life, and i think it was a great part of his success. he was a person who gloried in representing illinois. he never harbored any national ambitions. being a senator from illinois was his goal in life. he reached it, and he performed so well as senator that he is fondly remembered by many of us who served with him in the house and in the senate. he represented an old-school style of politics. he believed in his heart that people of good will could find common ground if they just worked at it. he knew how to make this government work and how to make this senate work and work for the state of illinois. in his memoir which he published last year, he wrote, "generally speaking, my political career was built on good will and accommodation." he was known by senators on both sides of the aisle as a friendly, helpful, articulate, and effective colleague. he was a down state guy in our state. he grew up in bellville in st. clean air county, not too faraway from my hometown of st. louis. he grew up across the river in the great city of st. louis. alan served in world war ii in the u.s. navy air corps. after the war he went off to the university of illinois where they had a special arrangement for vets to earn a behalf lore's degree, went a short time to the university of illinois law school. then he transferred to washington university law school where he graduated second in his class. in 1948 at the age of 21, a neighbor said lain, i've been watching you, and i think you ought to consider running for police madge i state. alan hadn't even graduated from law school. so he ran and he won. two years later after getting out of law school and passing the bar, both in mo and in illinois, he was elected to the illinois house of representatives, the youngest member ever elected to the illinois general s. ssembly. his starting stahlry: $3,000. he went on to become one of the most successful vote getters in the state of illinois. he won 29 consecutive bids for public office for state representative, state senator, secretary of state, and state treasurer. during one of those races he carried all 102 counties in illinois, all 30 townships in cook county and all 50 wards. that's a record i don't think anybody will ever break. when he he served in springfield, illinois, he pointed with pride to his passage of a constitutional change in illinois to finally modernize our judiciary. he remembered his days as police magistrate and he thought our system of justice had to be brought into the 20th century. alan dixon of bellville, illinois, led that effort. he got it done. he was effective. people trusted him and they respected him. he led an unpopular fight against loyalty oaths during the mccarthy era and he helped create the illinois community college system. in 1908 the people of illinois chose alan dixon to represent them here in the united states senate. he teamed up with his old friend a couple years later who joined him in the illinois general assembly, his seatmat seatmate,n named paul simon. dixon and then-congressman paul simon, then to be senator simon, were colleagues and business partners. there was paul simon who might be persuaded tbhuns a blue moon to drink a little glass of wine and there was al dixon who loved that beer. but the two of them were fast friends. i witnessed that friendship over the years. i didn't see the early days when they owned newspapers together. paul was a newspaperman and alan more an investor. but i did witness the political part of that prett of that partp and it was amazing to see. there were moments in their lives when the two could have clashed over their political ambitions but they always, always worked it out and they were always friends and that made a big difference in both of their lives. it was alan dixon as united states senator who came up with an idea that had never been tried before in illinois. he decided to try to get all of the members of the illinois congressional delegation, democrats and republicans, to get together for lunch on a regular basis. well, he had to persuade a few of the old-timers who weren't really open to the idea. but twais his personality -- but it was his personality that got it done, a tradition that toins this day. in his 12 years in the united states senate, alan dixon didn't forget where he came frvment he remembered growing up in a family of modest means. he remembered those tough summer jobs, and he never forgot the working people that he represented in st. claire county. alan was at the top of his game and in the strongest voice when it came to stand be up for the work being people anded little guy. he fought for affordable housing and lending practices. he de-noinsed wasteful spending and create add procurement czar to oversee spending at the pentagon. one of the things which he's remembered for was deciding to personally as united states senator test a new weapons system. they sent him down to test the sorgent york gun. he was going to test it and fire it. he soon discovered the gun was a dud. it couldn't shoot straight. he came back and reported it to his colleagues in the united states senate, including senator sam nunn, and they went along with senator dixon and said, we're going to junk this project. it is a waste of taxpayers' money. it was alan dixon who called for oversight of the se s&l industr. in 1992, alan lost his bid for reelection to the senate in a hotly contested three-way primary. it was the political ya upset of the year. it isn't often up here that a united states senator would flews a primary race for reelection. a lot of people were wondering, how would it affect alan dixon? well, election night alisten stood up and gave -- ala alan sd up and gave the most heart-touching speech. it was repeated over and over that he was a real jevment the words that he had to say even in defeat added to his reputation as a fine, honest, great public servant. the tearful crowd listened as he said he loved every golden moment of his time in politics. his fellow democratic colleagues had elected him unanimously to serve as chief deputy chip whip. after his loss, he was praised on the floor by not only ted kennedy and bob mitchell, but strom thurmond and bob dole as well. in 1995 his public life was resumed when president clinton appointed him to chair the base closure commission known as the defense base realignment and closure commission. it made sense. as a senator, dixon had written the section of the defense authorization bill that created the brac commissions. here was a man who'd spent his entire here making political friends but took on a job that was bound to test some of those friendships. he accepted that assignment because the president asked and he knew -- dixon knew -- it was right for america. it was the same decision he made when he enlisted to serve in world war i. last october alan published his memoirs, "the gentleman gr illinois." he returned to washington with jodie and members of the family to head on over to his favorite capitol hill restaurant, the monocle. it is about a stone's throw from the dirksen senate office building where he used to have his own meetings in his office. the montana qul wa monocle walle where he joined for bipartisan dinners. alan told his old friend, what it country needs is more friends on the hill working together afned talking together and working for solutions that will serving the interest of the public. alan was right about that. i hope that someday in his memory we'll see the return of that spirit. this country truly needs to work together. before dixon left the senate, then-senator paul simon praised him with these words. "in generations to come, his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren will look back saned with pride, alan dixon was my father, my grand fairnlg and my great-grandfather, whatever that relationship will be." those words by paul simon about his lifelong political friend and colleague alan dixon ring true today as we reflect not only on his service but also has a pen. i lost a pell when alan dixon passed away. my wife and i want to stndz our condolences to alan's wife of 60 year, ied jodie. people don't realize what spouses put up with because of our public lives. she put up with it for many, many years. o, there were good times but i'm sure there were tough times, too. she was his rock. to alan and jodie's three children, to their families, to the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren, you can be proud of alan dixon. he was truly the gentleman from illinois. madam president, i'd like to make a comment on a different topic at this point, separate and "part" in the record -- separate and apart in the record with unanimous consent. spheb. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this last weekend in chicago was memorable. memorable for the wrong reasons. this last weekend in chicago gun violence took the lives of 14 people and wounded 82. i am a honored to represent illinois. i am especiallied honored to represent a great city like chicago. but i'm heartbroken to think about what happened this past weekend. mayor emanuel anticipated the 4th of july weekend would be a challenge and they dispatched hundreds, hundreds, of police to the streets of chicago in an effort avert this violence. i wouldn't say they failed, but i would say that the tragedy that followed tells us that we have a lot of work to do. i'm sure mayor emanuel, all of the elected officials in chicago, superintendent mccarthy, are looking over what happened this past weekend trying to think of what they can do to bring peace to the city and end the violence which has taken so many lives. they'll be working overtime, and a lot of people will point the finger of blame and say they could have done more. i think the mayor would acknowledge he could have done more. but let me add, we all could have done more. it isn't just the city's responsibility. -- that this gun violence has occurred. it isn't just the city of chicago's misfortune that these lives were lost and that gun violence continues to plague us. it is a responsibility that goes far beyond the city of chicago. it is a responsibility that is visited on this chamber of the united states senate. how can we ignore gun violence in america wherever it occurs? in chicago, in washington, d.c., across this country. what are we doing as members of the united states senate? what efforts are we making to make america a safer place to live? we've run away from it, madam president. we ran away from our responsibility when it comes to an honest, conscientious discussion about gun control. some people are frightened of this issue. they think when you get near the second amendment, it's the third rail of politics and that there are gun lobby groups out there just waiting to pounce on any member who comes to the floor of this senate and talks about changing our gun laws. well, that's been the case for a long, long time. and yet, the american people, when you ask them the basics, get it. they understand that you can protect our second amendment rights to own and use firearms legally and responsibly and still put reasonable limits to keep guns out of the hands of people who will misuse them. is there anyone who believes that it's an infringement of constitutional rights to say that no one who has been convict ed of a felony should be allowed to purchase a firearm in america? that makes sense. this weekend in chicago, convicted felons were out on the street with firearms, firing away. we should do everything in our power to stop that from occurring. and after all of the senseless tragedies which we have seen over the last several years in connecticut, in so many different places, even in the state of illinois, is there anyone who argues with the premise that people who are so mentally unstable that they cannot accept the responsibility of a firearm should not be allowed to buy a firearm? two things: convicted felons, mentally unstable people, should not be allowed to purchase firearms in america, period. we had that vote, a bipartisan vote. joe manchin of west virginia -- no liberal. joe's a real conservative and pro-gun. he joined up with pat toomey, senator toomey of pennsylvania, about as conservative a republican as you can find. and the two of them brought manchin-toomey to the floor and said let us do background checks to make sure that convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable cannot purchase a firearm. it failed. it failed because it face add filibuster which we couldn't break. a majority of the senators voted for it, but that wasn't enough. we needed 60. we didn't have it. we lost a hand full of democrats and we attracted only a few republicans to support us. well, to me, that's not the end of the debate. it's time for us to revisit that issue. it's time for us to have another vote on the floor of the united states senate. i'm not sure the outcome will be much different. but we owe it to the people of this country to continue this debate. and we owe it as fellow senators, democrats and republicans, to search for solutions. let me tell you another thing that could have helped in chicago and other cities across america. there's a term called straw purchaser. a straw purchaser is someone who will walk into a gun store, present their identification and purchase a firearm because they're legally entitled to purchase it, and then turn around and give it or sell it to someone who could not legally buy that same gun. many times it turns out to be the girlfriend who is sent in to make the purchase. well, it's time to change that law. it's time to send out an all points bulletin to the girlfriends of thugs that they're going to be sent away to prison for a long, long time for that kind of irresponsible act. straw purchasers with these guns pass them into the community, and when they do we know what happens. innocent people die. that's another provision that we should vote on on the floor of the united states senate. if there are colleagues who want to stand up here and defend the right of straw purchasers to buy guns and turn them over to convicted felons, be my guest. i want to hear that debate. tell me how that's an exercise of your constitutional right. it's not. i have thousands and thousands of people across illinois who own firearms, who store them safely, use them legally, and enjoy their rights under the constitution. but i'm suggesting today is not going to change that at all. but they live in communities where people will misuse these firearms. we have a moral responsibility in the united states senate to do everything we can to keep firearms out of the hands of people who misuse them. we have a legal and moral responsibility to accept this opportunity in the senate to debate these issues. we can't run away from them any more than we can run away from the violence in our streets. i'm not alone in my feelings on this issue. there are other senators who share them. it is time for us to stand up and speak up. we have a responsibility to the people we represent, to innocent people who are being threatened and killed across america. madam president, what happened in chicago over the 4th of july weekend is a wakeup call, another wakeup call to the united states senate to get about the business of our purpose here, the reason we were elected, to try to make america a better and safer place. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i am here today to talk about the helping working families afford child care act, which is a bill that my colleagues, senators shaheen, boxer, gillibrand and i, introduced today. it will update the child and dependent care tax credit to offer working families more relief from the rising costs of child care. you know, when the child and dependent tax care tax credit was enacted originally, kids were playing with rubix cubes and listening to 8-track tapes. well, as we all know, a lot has changed since then and one of the most important changes our country has seen since that time is the rise of women in the labor force. since the mid-1970's, women's participation in the labor force has increased by 23%. and now most women do work full-time. and in two-thirds of family with dependent children, both parents work outside the home. madam president, over a period of time in which the middle class has been squeezed by an increasing global economy, higher prices for everything from health care to college, and women joining the labor force has helped to ease some of those burdens for families. in fact, federal reserve chair janet yellen has called the increasing participation of women in the work force -- quote -- "a major factor in sustaining growing family incomes." and a recent study by the center for american progress found that between 1979 and 2012, the u.s. economy grew by almost 11% as a result of women joining the labor force. now, as we look for ways to create jobs and expand growth in the 21st century, it's clear our country's economic success goes hand in hand with that of women and working families. so we've got to make sure that our policies are updated to meet the needs of today's working parents. and one area we really need to take a look at is child care. madam president, the cost of child care has skyrocketed in recent years. full-time child care for just one child can cost families more than $10,000 annually. and for families below the poverty level, those who are already struggling the most to make ends meet, child care can on the average swallow up a third of what those parents are able to bring home. this is a real problem for far too many hardworking parents and it's a problem for our economy. because when parents are struggling to find reliable, safe, affordable care for their children during the day, it's harder for them to give their all on the job. and even worse, child care is so expensive, some parents, most often mothers, are deciding it's not even worth returning to the work force. madam president, this means that families are being held back from gaining the economic security they are working so hard to achieve. the child and dependent care tax credit was, of course, intended to help parents overcome these barriers. but today the benefit working parents get from the credit is a small fraction of what child care actually costs. and because of how it's structured, the lowest income working families can't benefit from it at all, meaning they have to bear the full brunt of child care costs on very low wages. so, madam president, it's clear this tax credit is one of the policies we need to bring into the 21st century and that's exactly what we are doing when we introduce the helping working families afford child care act. that legislation will boost the benefit working families can receive for child care costs and it will make the child and dependent care tax credit refundable so those working parents who are struggling the most to make ends meet can better afford the child care they need to work and support their families. if congress passes our bill, working families next year could see a credit of $1,600 for one child or $3,200 for more than one child. that's almost three times the maximum benefit many families are currently eligible to receive. so our bill would be a real help to hardworking families who are trying to raise their children, pay the bills, save for college and put something away for retirement. and it could help break down one of the biggest barriers mothers face when thinking about reentering the work force. madam president, the need to expand access to affordable child care is something i often talk with my own constituents about in washington state. and during those conversations, what i hear from parents is, i'm so glad you're focused on this. it's a real issue for us. updating this tax credit to reflect the needs of families in today's economy would be a critical step forward in terms of our larger effort to make sure working parents, dads and moms, have a fair shot. madam president, i believe that by putting in place policies to make child care more affordable, by making sure that women get equal pay that they deserve, by raising the minimum wage so millions of workers have a better shot at lifting themselves out of poverty, and by taking steps to ensure students aren't overwhelmed by debt after they graduate from college, we could break down some very real barriers that are holding our families and our economy back. and there's no reason why we shouldn't start with that right now with the bill that we're introducing today. so i hope all of our colleagues will take a minute, look at this helping working families afford child care act and take this serious. i hope we'll be able to make it easier for moms and dads to afford safe, reliable care for their children while they're at work. i think we can all agree that parents deserve to have that peace of mind. and i believe that if we enact this bill and build on it with other critical policies to help working families, our economy will be much stronger now and over the long term. so i want to thank senators shah heerntion boxer anshah -- senatn boxer, and gillibrand -- shaheen, boxer and gillibrand for their hard work on the part of working families. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2363, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 384, s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting and for other purposes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. i rise today in support of the bipartisan sportsmen's act. first i want to thank senator hagan and murkowski for their leadership in gathering support and getting this bill to the floor. nearly half of the senate is cosponsoring this legislation from every corner of our country. it is truly a national bill and it's why over 30 groups, from the national shooting sports foundation to ducks unlimited to the dallas safari club and many others, support this bill. it is an ambitious proposal that includes dozens of smart ideas from both sides of the aisle. it encourages private investment into fish habitat as well as land and wildlife management. this bill supports public shooting ranges so more folks have a place to take their kids to teach them how to responsibly handle a firearm. and it protects some of our best places to hunt, fish and recreate. but make no mistake, the bipartisan sportsmen's act is also a jobs bill, something that we constantly talk about needing more of around here. madam president, in my state of montana, outdoor recreation supports tens of thousands of jobs. it's a $6 billion-a-year industry. nationwide, our outdoor economy creates and sustains more than 6 million jobs every single year. despite the economic power of public lands to sustain the rural economy, some folks are talking about closing off the land and privatizing it. we cannot let that happen. instead, we need to pass a bipartisan -- pass the bipartisan sportsmen's act which will strengthen our economy which will create more opportunity for folks to continue recreating in our great outdoors. responsibly enjoying our outdoors is part of our way of life in montana. in the big sky state, we are proud hunters, anglers, sportsmen and women. and that's why it's critical that this bill will open up more of our public lands to every law-abiding american that has a right to access it. in montana alone, nearly 2 million acres of public land is not easily accessible to folks and i'm proud that my colleagues included the making public lands public provision that i have pushed for for years. these lands were set aside for our parents to enjo to enjoy, ff us to enjoy and ultimately for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. accessing these lands it our birthright and this bill delivers on a centuries-old promise to preserve our outdoor heritage. by passing this bipartisan legislation, we will help ensure future generations get to experience the natural wonders that were passed down to us. last congress, the senate took up a similar package only to see political gamesmanship get in the way. we competent let that happen again. millions of sportsmen and women across this country expect better. the american people deserve better. there is too much in this bill that we agree on to let it fail once again. senators hagan and murkowski have worked diligently for months to craft a bill that has an incredible amount of support both in the senate but most importantly back home in the states that we all represent. let's pass this bill once and for all. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted and that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, americans might have noticed a trend in obamacare headlines over the past two days. there was sunday's political story and it basically had this title -- why liberals are abandoning the obamacare employer mandate. and there was an associated press story entitled senate democrats try to pull focus from obamacare. then on monday, politico published a story called obamacare's next threat, a september surprise, which is about the white house's efforts to prepare democrats to meet september rate hike announcements. madam president, all these stories amount to one thing -- democrats are running scared from obamacare. these three articles are just a few of the many pieces to be published about democrats' efforts to distance themselves from obamacare in preparation for the november election. madam president, it's not surprising that they're worried. obamacare is democrats and the white house's main legislative achievement, and americans don't like it. they didn't like it in 2010 when the law was passed. they didn't like it when the law was being implemented, and they don't like it now. a quinnipiac poll from last week reported that 55% of americans oppose obamacare. similar numbers of americans opposed it three months earlier. and almost three months before that. in fact, madam president, when you average polling on the health care law from late 2009 until today, you find that the health care law has consistently been opposed by the majority of americans. opposition to the health care law currently averages nearly 14 percentage points higher than support. that's not a good sign for democrats. many democrats who firmly supported the health care law in 2009 and 2010 believed that that law would grow more popular when the american people found out what was in the bill and how it would benefit them, but the health care law has not gotten more popular. americans found out what was in the bill, and they didn't like it. democrats are realizing that their support for the bill may cost them their seats in november, and so now they are running in the opposite direction. according to monday's political article, the white house knows very well the democrats are finding obamacare to be a big problem in their campaigns. so it has redirected the efforts of its obamacare war room to preparing for the release of rate hikes that are coming in september. the white house and its allies know, and this is a quote from the story, they have been beaten in every previous round of obamacare messaging, nevermore devastatingly than in 2010. the story goes on to say, and they know the results this november could hinge in large part on whether that happens again, so they are trying to avoid or at least get ahead of any september surprise, end quote. that's from the political story. madam president, let me just say to the white house good luck with that. there's a reason why the white house why -- and its allies have been beaten in every previous round of obamacare messaging. it's because the white house's messaging didn't match up with the reality that it promised americans. the white house can talk all it wants about obamacare supposed benefits, but if americans aren't experiencing those benefits, no amount of talking is going to work. most americans aren't experiencing obamacare benefits. they are experiencing obamacare pain. higher premiums, higher deductibles, the loss of doctors and hospitals, less control and less freedom. like most members of congress, i have gotten countless letters from constituents telling me about the pain that obamacare is causing them. tom in hurley, south dakota, wrote to me to tell me his premiums have more than doubled and his deductibles have more than quadrupled since the president's health care law was enacted. harvey from mitchell, south dakota, wrote to tell me that his insurance went up 16%, effective april 1 of this year. biggest increase ever, he said. jill from sturgis, south dakota, wrote to tell me she went online to get a health insurance estimate at healthcare.gov and found that the cheapest plan would cost her $366 a month and a $5,000 deductible. are you kidding me, she wrote. that's $9,392 a year i have to pay in every year before it even pays anything, which is roughly 16% of our combined income. i can't afford that and try to save money for retirement at the same time, she says. madam president, jill's not alone in being -- not being able to afford that. too many americans are in similar situations facing the prospect of huge health care bills and wondering how on earth they're going to pay them. all the talk in the world from the white house isn't going to make people enthusiastic about obamacare if they can't afford their obamacare premiums or have lost access to the doctor or the hospital that they liked. madam president, politico reports that 21 states, 21 states have posted preliminary health insurance premiums for 2013 and that average preliminary premiums went newspaper all 21 states. those proposed increases, several in the double digits, are coming on top of the steep premium hikes many americans faced this year. the white house can attempt to defend these increases as much as it wants, but there really isn't any way to spin huge premium hikes when you promised people that their premiums not only wouldn't increase but would actually go down. madam president, obamacare is fundamentally broken. this bill was supposed to reduce health care premiums and lower the cost of care while allowing americans to keep the doctors that they liked. instead, it's done the exact opposite. and obamacare isn't just driving up health care premiums. it's also devastateing our already damaged economy. the obamacare 30-hour workweek rule is forcing businesses large and small to reduce employees' hours at a time when many americans are struggling to find full-time work. "usa today" reported yesterday that friday's unemployment report found a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. so what you have, madam president, is people who want to work, they want to work full time, but full-time jobs aren't available so they are taking part-time work. why? one of the reasons they attribute is the obamacare requirement that the workweek be a 30-hour week as opposed to a 40-hour week. so what's happening is employers are hiring employees for less than 30 hours a week so that they won't be stuck with all the requirements and the mandates that come with obamacare. and so it's leading to more part-time jobs when people actually are looking for full-time work in our economy. the law's burdensome mandates and regulations are placing a heavy burden on small businesses and making it impossible for many of them to expand and to hire new employees, and as politico reported, when it comes to the employer mandate, even liberals are admitting that the rule is unnecessary and burdensome. politico notes, and i quote -- the shift among liberal policy experts and advocates has been rampant. a stream of studies and statements have deemed the mandate only moderately useful for getting more people covered under obamacare, and they, too, have come to see it as clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as many problems as it solves, end quote. that's from the politico story talking about many of the liberal policy experts who are now turning their back on the employer mandate. and then there is the potential for fraud with the health and human services inspector general's office reporting that the administration is not properly verifying that those receiving subsidies actually qualify for them, and the disastrous web sites have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. madam president, the list just goes on and on and on. whether they admit it or not, everyone knows that obamacare isn't working. it's time to start over and replace this law with real reforms, reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care. republicans have offered soon

Transcripts For CSPAN Road To The White House 20140414

it into the real world, is enough money to pay the real sally's -- salaries of more than 425,000 public school teachers today, corporate profits are at an all-time high. corporationse aren't up to 300 times of what their employees make. each year am a wealthy and large corporations avoid haying their fair share of taxes. in out of four corporations this country pays nothing in taxes. the wealthy and large corporations avoid paying about $100 billion a year because they stash their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and other tax havens. empties like general electric, boeing, verizon and others, who make billions in profits manage at the end of the year to pay nothing. oft is the economic reality america today. the rich doing unbelievably well . they have a rating system with tax breaks for them sending american jobs all over the world, yet in golden parachutes of tens of millions of dollars when they retire. families in this country, this is a difficult moment. i talked about some of the problems. what should we be doing? i will talk about some of the areas i have been working on. people what the most serious problem facing this country am a they rattle off a whole lot. the top one is jobs. they understand that real unemployment is higher than official unemployment. they understand that we need to create millions of decent paying jobs in this country. let me give you no idea -- give you an idea of how we can do that and do it quickly. i do not know about new hampshire, but i do know that the roads and bridges and wastewater plants in the state of vermont have serious, serious problems. the society of civil engineers talks about trillions of dollars in infrastructure. we need a massive amount of work to rebuild our roads, rebuild our bridges, rebuild our rail system, which is falling further and further behind europe and japan and china. if we invested in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, not only would we make our country productive,tive and we can create millions of jobs doing that. that is exactly what we should be doing. [applause] rewriting our be policies, which have benefited corporate america, but at the expense of working people. have got to start reinvesting in the united states of america and start creating jobs in this country, rather than china. [applause] play a whole lot of attention to the wage situation in this country. today, nationally, we have a $7.25 minimum wage. that is obscene. that is unacceptable. we have got to raise the minimum wage. [applause] legislation on the ,loor, i believe of the senate in two weeks. it calls for $10.10 an hour. i would go further than that. $10.10 is a start to bring people out of charity. pay equity, how about that, women? [applause] $.77 should not be making on the dollar to a man. we should be paying are people equal wages for equal work. say a word about health care. i have heard one or two things about this. the affordable health care act, this communist, socialist plot. the concept of the affordable health care act came from republican think tanks. it was implemented by that communist mitt romney a few miles south of here. i voted for it with hesitation. i voted for it. i was able to get $10 million to expand community health centers all over this country. [applause] other provisions in there for disease prevention and help people to pay their medical bills. i think the affordable care act has been a modest success. obviously, the rollout was a disaster. that is all that our republican friends can talk about. five years from now, nobody will care about the rollout. all that people will care about is if people can go to a doctor when they need to. there was a study at harvard university. year0 americans die each because they do not get to a doctor when they should. i have talked to a number of doctors. they walked into my office and she was really sick. why did you not come in here yet though i did not have any health insurance. i the time she walked into this room, it was too late. how did it happen that as this nation we end up spending almost twice as much for personal health care as the people of any other country, yet we wind up with 40 million people with no health insurance. we have many people that are underinsured with large copayments and deductibles. healthend of that, our care outcomes compared to other countries in terms of infant mortality and longevity are not particularly good. the answer is that to a very significant degree, what health care in america is about is making money for private health care insurance companies. [applause] the affordable care act is a modest step forward. we need to recognize that health are in the year 2014 must be right of all people. we must move to a medicare for all, single-payer program. [applause] i said a word before about education. i will add a few words to that. education is what it is about. education is what life is about if you are 90. every psychologist who has ever studied the issue, it is not a debate anymore. thederstand the -- that most important formative years 0-4.human being' life is it is important that the kids that age get the emotional and intellectual nourishment that they need, they will do much better. despite all of that knowledge, today in new hampshire, today in vermont, all over america, millions of working families are struggling qualityaffordable childcare. because it isit too expensive. the result is that millions of kids have inadequate childcare preschool education. the disgrace is that we are paying our childcare workers minimum wage in many cases. low wages without benefits. what kind of priority is that? when we entrust little kids' lives to them. we do not give them the training, we do not give them the income, we do not give them the benefits that they need to make that an important career. [applause] i think maybe we might learn something in terms of education in -- from countries like germany, denmark, sweden. they have said that in a competitive global economy, they understand, they need the best educated workforce possible. itt they understand is that toinsane to say working-class kids, we are sorry, you may be really smart, you may be really energetic, but you cannot afford to go to college. if you do go to college, you will come out $50,000 in debt. maybe we should learn something from countries all over the world that say that you will get a college education without cost of who you are. [applause] think of what that means to kids in manchester, vermont. in manchester, vermont and manchester, new hampshire, and manchesters all over the country. and kids in fifth or sixth grade know that if they study, they will be able to go to college. he will be able to make it into the middle class. education fromm all over this country. i want to talk a little bit about another area that i have spent time working on. that is the issue of retirement security. at a time when only one in five workers in the private sector have a defined benefit pension plan, when half of americans have less than $10,000 in savings and two thirds of seniors rely on social security for more than half of their to stand up job is strong and say to our friends on the other side of power, our right wing republican friends, you are not going to cut social security. [applause] going to give you --there is a lot of difficult news. i want to give you a success story. i want to do in you back two or three years ago to washington dc. my republican friends were saying that we have this terrible deficit. we have got to get that deficit in a minute and how it was caused. we have this terrible deficit, therefore we will have to do -- what do you call it? we are going to have to cut social security. they come up with this expression because nobody has a clue what it is. it amounts to significant cuts ford nefits for seniors disabled veterans. as chairman of the veterans committee, i was more than aware of that. nt, virtually every republican, you had many democrats talking about it. you had the president of the united states talking about it. people like pete peterson, he is a wall street billionaire. he has put hundreds of millions of dollars into an obsession to cut social security. the last time i was on this campus, a year and a half ago, p peterson's group, he has a group running around talking about the deficit. seniors fromp of vermont and massachusetts say hello to those folks. butilled up not this room, another one. it was an interesting meeting. pete's folks heard from people they did not want to hear from. with so many people living on the edge and when poverty among seniors is going up and the meals on wheels program and many seniors are in trouble, it would be morally grotesque for anybody to talk about cutting social our job is to expand social security. [applause] when anybody tells you -- i will use a nice word, misinformation. about social security going rogue. social security can pay out every benefit for the next 19 years. you can make social security stronger for the next 50 or 60 years. right now, somebody makes $10 million a year. they both contribute the same amount into the system. [applause] cap and social security is strong for the next 50 or 60 years and we can expand the numbers. one thing on an issue that is very troubling to me. it is an interesting issue. on being arselves free society. we need to have a serious national conversation about what that is. are you a free society if every telephone call you make ends up in an nsa file? are you living in freedom if some of your e-mail exchanges are intercepted or there is knowledge on the part of the government about the websites that you visit? i do not think so. that is why i voted against the usa patriot act and against the reauthorization of the usa patriot act. [applause] obviously got to be vigilant against terrorism. it is a very serious issue. let me touch on -- i keep saying this important issue. each one of these issues is gigantically important. or notto do with whether this planet really survives. that is the issue of climate change. oxspite what you may see on f general, theia in scientific community is overwhelmingly an agreement that climate change is real. it is caused significantly by human activity. now, we are seeing devastating results in terms of s, heat waves, forest fires, extreme weather disturbances. telling us that that situation will only get worse unless we address the problem and significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions and move towards sustainable energy. i do not mean to be overly partisan today. i am partisan, obviously. my republican colleagues is a point me every day. why we can't have disagreements on so many issues. it is frightening to me and to you that you have virtually entirely the republic party rejecting science. in terms of climate change. they do not reject science in terms of cancer research. they do not reject science in many areas. because of the power of the fossil fuel industry, the oil industries, the coal industries, the gas companies, they are willing to push aside what is the overwhelming scientific evidence. the truth of the matter is that if we are aggressive in reversing climate change, if the united states of america becomes can have a huge impact in moving china, in moving india, in moving other countries. when we moved the issues like energy efficiency, in vermont right now, we are weatherizing thousands of homes. your senator has been very active on this issue. when you do these things, you cut people's fuel bills vary significantly. you cut greenhouse gas emissions. you create jobs. that is what you do. [applause] be patient. i am coming to the end. i do not know how to juggle. why did you put this thing first and this thing second? they are all important. they are about the future of america. i want to get to something else. what for many people is not a particularly sexy issue. it is at the heart of everything. campaign finance. [applause] now, a few years ago, the united states supreme court made a decision that had people scratching their heads. citizens united case, my understanding is that citizens united is one of the hosts of the republican event, they said that corporations are people. equally important, that individuals could now spend as much money as they wanted in the political process because they have the first amendment right of political speech to do that. what is the impact of the recent case that we heard a couple of weeks ago. here is the impact. i want you to think very seriously about this. everybody in vermont, new hampshire, we all have different opinions. that is called democracy. i would hope and respect to those people that fought and died to defend democracy and our way of life, that there is not a difference of opinion. in the united states of america, billionaires should not be able to buy elections. [applause] me give you ver concrete examples of what is happening today on the other side of town in new hampshire. a few weeks ago, we saw a remarkable spectacle in las vegas, nevada. i have a lot of spectacles and las vegas. this one was quite remarkable. that was sheldon adelson, worth beck andof dollars, republican presidents -- candidates for president for he wouldell him what do for him and support his agenda. i understand i am stepping on sensitive toes here. you think that new hampshire has the first presidential primary in the country, right? son primary -- adel is the first time mary in america. the difference tells you everything you need to know about what is happening in politics today. in new hampshire, candidates come. they are democrats and they are republicans and they talk to people. democrat or republican or whatever they like. about, and if we do not change it, this is the future of american politics, a billionaire telling me, tell me what i want to hear. if you do tell me, i am prepared earned $11 billion last year. i may put hundreds of millions of dollars into your campaign. i may put a billion. it does not matter. obama spent a little bit over one billion dollars. these guys could take $1 billion out of their pocket today and they would not notice it was gone. what you are looking at now is a situation where billionaires are going to control the political process. if we do not get our act together, we are moving rapidly down the road to an oligarchic form of society were billionaires control not only the economic life of the nation, but the political life as well. issue that we any bring people of any political persuasion, i do not care if you are conservative or progressive, we have got to fight to defend american democracy and not allow billionaires to take it over. [applause] way, while it is absolutely true that the republican and right-wing billionaires are spending a lot more money, there are democratic billionaires as well. we have got to oppose that. i am not much into constitutional amendments. , 50 different constitutional amendments every day. i am not into that. i do believe in introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. [applause] view, we need to move funding ofic elections. and do, ande can, will have differences of opinion. that is called democracy. i do not claim to have all of the answers. based on ideasns and not just billionaires flooding the airwaves with ugly 32nd ads. second ads. let me tell you why it is so important what is going on today with regard to campaign finance. 1980, david coke using this as am an important example, one of the brothers ran for vice president of the united states under the libertarian party. out of his own pocket, he ended up financing much of the campaign. you down aake road. you to understand this. i want you to understand what was in the 1980 libertarian platform that koch ran on in which he got one percent of the 1980, the views that he ran on were considered extremist, kooky, way out of the mainstream. today, the lyrical tragedy of the times is that those extremist ideas are now mainstream and the republican party. i want to give you some of them. from theve you quotes libertarian platform of the 1980 party that koch ran on. federalthe repeal of campaign-finance laws and the immediate abolition of the despotic federal election commission. do you understand what that means? do you understand that two weeks ago clarence thomas, in a that.on, said exactly that is where the republican is moving. in 2014 they want to and all restrictions on campaign financing. that means a handful of billionaires will sit in a room and say let's put $20 million into new hampshire, $30 million into vermont. in these guys, it is a drop the bucket. if you allow unlimited spending, we will certainly lose the foundations of american democracy. that is what they were talking about 34 years ago. that is what is happening today. the is another plank of 1980 libertarian party. we favor the abolition of medicare and medicaid. haven't succeeded, but they are trying. it would change medicare as we know it and move it towards a voucher-type program. in other words, what it would say is we're going to give you, when you're 65 or 67, and they probably want to raise the age for medicare eligibility, is we want to give you a check, and you can go to any private insurance company that you want. well, if you have cancer that will last you about one day, maybe. but that is their plan to how they want to deal with medicare. in terms of medicaid, the ryan budget does not end immediate -- medicaid, but it would take health insurance away from 40 million americans over a 10-year period by cutting medicaid by more than $1.5 trillion and also end the affordable care act. remember what "the coach" brothers said back in 198 -- what the koch brothers said back in 1980. this is what they said, quote, "we favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive social security system. pending that repeal participation, social security should be made voluntary." well, many of my republican olleagues believe just that. furthermore, 1980, the koch brothers libertarian party stated, "we oppose personal income taxation, including capital gains tax. we support the eventual repeal of all taxation. as an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately." [laughter] well, today's republican party does not believe in the end of all taxation. they don't. t the recently passed ryan budget, passed by the republican house, provides a $5 trillion tax break for the wealthiest people in this country and large corporations. the ryan budget would provide an average tax break of at least $200,000 a year for millionaires. and lastly -- and, again, see what's happening today. this is talked about 1980. libertarian party staked out a very clear position on the minimum wage. "we support repeal of all wars which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws." do you understand what they're saying? many people don't. they're saying, we not only oppose increasing minimum wage, we want to do away with the concept of minimum wage, because our freedom-loving friends at the other end of town today believe that you should have the freedom, if you're in a high unemployment area, to work for $3 an hour. you don't want the government coming in. and they should have the freedom to throw all of their crap into the rivers and lakes and air, pollute our society, because you don't want to restrict them from doing that and limit their freedom. and if you are hungry, you have the freedom not to be able to feed your families, because we don't believe in nutrition programs. and if you're 65 or 70 and you are sick, you have the freedom to die, because we don't believe in federal medicare or medicaid. [applause] [applause] and that is the essence of what the koch brothers and all their organizations believe in, freedom for billionaires to get richer, freedom for coal companies to continue polluting our nation and moving us in a disastrous way with regards to climate change, freedom of wall street to continue to go about their greedy, illegal ways to disrupt our entire economy. that's their definition of freedom. so to my mind, here's where we are right now. i've touched on a lot of issues, and all of them, without exception, are important, and there are many other issues i didn't even say a word about that are terribly important as well. but where we are in this moment of history is pretty clear to me. and that is whether or not -- and it is not easy, and i'm not here to tell you that it happens by snapping your finger. whether or not we can bring about a political revolution in this country which demands and urges millions and millions of working people, middle class people, young people, old people, people who are so disgusted with the political system today, they don't want to vote, they don't want to go near it. they turn off their tv sets when they see the ugly ads. can we somehow bring them into the political process? and here is the very good news -- on every single issue, based on every poll -- and i look at these polls -- that i have seen, what these guys, the koch brothers and our right wing republican friends are talking about, they represent maybe 10% of the american people, 15% of the american people. you go to conservative states, mississippi, alabama, oklahoma, stand on a street corner and say, do you believe that we should cut social security, medicare and medicaid and give tax breaks to billionaires? and they will laugh at you. nobody believes that. very few people believe that. and what our job is to understand that there are issues. i'm 100% pro-choice all my life. i believe in gay marriage. vermont has led the nation on that. but we have to understand, there are differences of opinion on that. respect other people's differences of opinion. but our challenge is, can we bring together working families all over this country to stand for an america which makes sure that every single person has at least a modest standard of living, that our kids do well, that we end the international embarrassment of having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, that we do well by our seniors. can we do that? i think we can. so what the challenge is about is whether we move in that direction, bringing tens of millions of people together, getting them involved in the political process. having meetings like this all over america. having debates, having discussions, and expanding and strengthening our demcy. that's the way i think we have to go. and there's another way which the guys at the other end of town are talking about, and that is a handful of billionaires pumping hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, into campaigns, having candidates come before them and getting the litmus test that they will support the billionaire agenda. that's where we are in america. ither a strengthened democracy archy, an i vote for democracy. thank you very much. [applause] i just looked at my watch. my goodness, we've gone on for a long time. thank you very much for your patience. ok, how are we going to do this? we have some questions, i think. d be happy to -- >> thank you, senator sanders. if you could give this message to everybody in america, i think you'd be elected president. [applause] i have a request of you, and then a question. a simple request would be, can you do two things? if we could require the television networks and every station in all the cable news who get their licenses from us to give free airtime for 90 days before an election, we wouldn't have to raise billions of dollars. [applause] the other request is, you talk about jobs. young people on the street corners, college students, getting wasted three or four nights a week. of course, they don't all, but it happens. how about a youth corps requirement that every american boy or girl, you can't start college at 18. you have to work for the country for two years, either the military, the hospital corps, an indian reservation, every kid, two years, paid by the government, paid by the american people, to work for waste the greatest country in the world or used to be the greatest country in the world. it's our request that you look into those things. >> i think they're both sensible ideas. why are -- >> why are the democrats so passive? almost conceding that we're going to lose the senate, it's going to be taken over by mitch mcconnell and his right-wing hacks. why are we letting this happen? you talked about 45,000 dying every year from not being able to afford medical care. that's three jumbo jets equivalent crashing every week. if three jets or 150 crashed a year, people would stop flying and pay attention. most american people don't know there are 45,000 dead. most people don't know that a guy named bill mcguire, when he walked out the door, took $1 billion -- 1 . billion with him, private health insurance. people don't know these things. they'd be pissed if they did. >> let me answer your question in two respects. here's what my view is as to what's happening politically. i talked about the republicans. in vermont you may know that we history long, proud of republican governors. george aiken, i don't know if that name means anything to you. bob stafford. jim jeffords. we've had moderate republicans in the senate, in the house and government. those moderate republicans today could not get into the door of today's right wing republican party. so you see politically the republican party had been moved from a kind of a center right party to a right-wing extremist party. what about the democrats? well, if you look at the democratic party, look at what harry truman talked about in 1948. truman, as you may recall, was considered then to be a conservative democrat from missouri, conservative democrat. read what he has to say. there are very few democrats who will talk in his language today. democratic party has moved from a center left party focused on the american working class, to a centrist party, which sadly -- and it has to be admitted, and anyone who doesn't know it should know it -- also receives a lot of corporate and big money as well. so i agree with you. believe me, we have caucuses. i'm an independent. i rant and rave on this issue, that the democrats have got to stand with the working class of this country. [applause] and they've got to have the guts to take on big money. but the other point that i would make -- there are more good democrats out there working really hard, than you know. but they don't get into the media terribly o. they're not going to get on abc, cbs and nbc talking about the important issues, and that speaks to the first point that the questioner made about how we open up media for different points of view. ok, i think we got a question here. >> thank you. tim eckel ston. i work for the new hampshire department of education. my responsibility there, even though my question is not related to it, is with the national assessment of educational process. pretty much in tune with education. but the union leader a couple of weeks ago did a story on an effort that i'm making with introducing an alternative or, if you want to use it as an improvement to the affordable care act. and i've even gone as far as utting up a website. it's www .citizencare.u.s. and what i've done, it's been about three years in the making. but i've worked with governor levitt from utah. yway, i made the effort of talking with debby wasserman-schultz and others, discussing the program with them -- >> if people can make their comments kind of short. >> so here it goes, here it goes -- would you be willing to take a serious look at this -- if you want to see it as an improvement. >> we'd be happy to, thank you. >> again, citizencare.us. >> i don't know that we're going to have time to do all of the questions. .ut let's move them if you could be as brief as you can. >> i was so happy to hear your words on the centrality of campaign finance reform. and about your amendment. but even before citizens united was decided, we were in a mess with campaign finance and can't we go farther and reverse the buckley vallejo decision and restore the right of the people to limit campaign funding? also, it's not just corporations to limit the right of wealthy individuals to control elections. >> the answer is yes. i mean, that's -- >> but how? >> that's what public funding of electrics is about. public funding of elections. people say tax dollars are being used for elections. that makes a lot more sense when we limit the amount than having the billionaires buy elections. and it's hard stuff of the we have to figure it out. how do you create a situation where a serious candidate who has support -- not anybody can jump up, can then run an election, knowing that he or she has a certain amount of money, enough money to get the word out, without having to spend half his or her life raising money. now, by the way, one of the other dangerous things that this citizens united decision does, the other side of it is, is that the good guys have to keep up. and i will tell you -- and it's no great secret. in washington, in the house, you have candidates -- members of congress, not worrying about unemployment or education. they're spending half their lives trying to raise money in order to compete. it is a terrible, terrible situation. ok, ma'am? >> hi, rachel brown, the ruche pack. i want to bring up a few issues. one issue of the war, what's happening in ukraine, the fact that the parties that we just put into power in ukraine are neo-nazi parties, carried out genocide. that's the current government of ukraine. so it's a bigger issue than russia is a bad guy, etc. but we're looking at something which is driven actually not by the local conditions there, but by the collapse of the european and u.s. financial system, the fact that the bailouts, which began in 2008, has created the conditions where they're now moving to bail in, which is basically a detonator for the financial system once they start to close down these institutions. and that is really the drive for war. so i would say the way to get this nation off this track is for the impulse of the democratic party, who are opposed to a lot of the policies of obama, to break with obama. that as long as he is in office, that that is actually where the nation is headed, is towards war, and that we need to break with wall street as well, which is something i know that you are a proponent of. so could you comment on that. >> not at great length, i can't. but you raised an important issue and it's one of the issues i hardly got into at all. issues of war and peace. this is what i will say, though. i'll say two things. one of the things and i'm going to extrapolate a little bit, if you'll forgive me. our right wing friends today tell us the major and the reason they have to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, is because of the deficit, right? that's the reason. how did we get into this deficit situation? does anybody remember that when clinton left office in 2000, this country was running a significant surplus? [applause] and the economists then were projecting that that surplus would increase in years to come. so what happened? we went to war in iraq and afghanistan. now, i voted against the war in iraq, and i think history will record that as the right war. but does anybody here recall that all of those guys were just so anxious to get into that war. do you remember any discussion about what it would do to the deficit? how do we pay for that war? oh, we forgot. gee, just slipped our minds. we didn't pay for those wars, which will end up costing $3 trillion to $6 trillion. then we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy and passed medicare part d written by the drug companies and so forth. so i wanted to detour. in terms of issues -- the other thing i would say, again, you'll forgive me for not responding directly to your question, military spending. everybody agrees terrorism is a conscious in my view terrorism is serious, we need a strong defense. but there is something wacky when the united states is spending almost as much as the entire rest of the world on defense. in france and in germany they've got health care for all people, their kids get free education and we pay the military bill. maybe we want to think about that as well. [applause] >> thank you, senator, for coming to speak to us. i wonder if you'd care to comment on the natural gas industry and exports. >> well, i'll tell you, one area that we have been -- a lot of people use propane here? propane gas prices have shot up. very serious problem. and in fact, we wrote to the department of commerce asking them to stop the export, because here you have people in vermont and new hampshire seeing a huge increase and we're exporting that product all over the world. so i would suggest that we take care of people here first before we export it. [applause] >> yes. my name is jane lang from salem, new hampshire. i thank you so much for being here. i'm a very proud member of the new hampshire alliance for retired americans and work very strongly to make sure that we don't get those cuts in social security. but my question to you is, i am appalled by the fact that we elect our congress people and senators to washington to work for the people, when in fact, they spend at least 70% of their time, as you had mentioned, on the phones trying to raise money. what about the people, and not just the politics? >> that is the point that i made a moment ago. i don't know that it's 70%, and it varies. that's high. but i've got to tell you, the republicans do it, the democrats do it. they go to the offices in washington, they get on the phone. and here's the problem you have, and it gets to the issue of campaign financing. look, if you knew -- you know, you were a senator and you knew that an unlimited amount of money is going to come in to defeat you, what's your natural response? you have to raise money in response. and what the koch brothers and all these guys have made is a very bad situation much worse, much -- we have to stop it. that's why i spent so much time talking about the need of campaign finance reform and overturning citizens united and in fact moving to public funding of elections fl but your point is, it's not just the fact that we have so many 30-second ads. if you elect people to do your work -- and i got to tell you in both parties they are distracted and it's undefendable. somebody was coming into your state and you're a senator and you knew they were going to spend $20 million, you'd be on the phone and you would not be focusing. well, then, you'd lose. and that's the dilemma. that's why we need to change the system. ok. [applause] all right. this line keeps getting longer and longer. [laughter] why don't we do two more from both sides. how's that, sir? >> i'm dennis from dover, a disabled veteran also. quick question of, how does self-serving attitudes of congress get changed to where us as the common folk are heard more than themselves? >> good. again, i think it gets back to a simple point. you have a congress right now largely dependent on corporate money. they don't stay up nights worrying about you, when they are getting their funding from millionaires and billionaires. therefore, they worry about that agenda, not your agenda. let me give you some examples. you're a disabled vet. i'll give you an example. i'm chairman of the veterans committee. we have introduced the most comprehensive veterans legislation introduced in 20 years that would go a long way to deal with many of the very serious problems facing the veterans community. and you know what? supported by the american legion, the d.a.v., the v.f.w., iraq, afghanistan, all of the veterans organizations. we brought it to the floor, and that's a whole other story, because most of you think or most americans think it takes 51 votes to win. it doesn't. in an unprecedented way, the republicans have used filibuster after filibuster. takes 60 votes. you know how many republican votes i got for a bill that would improve life for disabled vets and veterans all over america? i got two. now, i'm working on three more. happy to say, i've got every member of the democratic caucus. i need three more. but to answer your question, what we need -- this is what a political -- look, it's not easy stuff. but you have got to bring your representatives all over the country in. you've got to have your agenda. what is your agenda? and if they're not voting for your agenda, if they're not supporting your ideas, you tell them, have a nice life but you're not getting re-elected. that's what it's about. and it's not easy. but that's what i mean about building a strong grass-roots movement that elects good people and holds them accountable. sir? >> russell vaughan, a disabled veteran from massachusetts. i'd like to thank you for what you do for the veterans on the veterans committee. i'll ask two quick things. my daughter of 29 is still paying off her college. there's a lot of chatter on facebook and whatever with some of these people that want to pay the fine on the affordable care act and don't want health care. now, she can't file a bankruptcy to get out from underneath. i don't think that the people who willingly, willingly do not take on health care should be able to file a bankruptcy and get out from underneath and let the rest of us pay for their health care. >> ok. >> the other thing that i just want to say real quickly is i think the minimum wage -- i think there should be a two tier minimum wage. if you're going to get $10 an hour for a 40-hour week, i think it's worth more to have somebody work for 30 or 20 hours where they have to juggle schedules and things like that and it would give them less of an incentive to fill their employee things with minimum-wage workers like wal-mart does. there should be like a $12.50 for part-time, $10 for full time. obviously exceptions for that but for a wal-mart or target or something like that, thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> i'm john from new london. i've two words and a phrase for you, senator. soil, water and endless warfare. in 1981 the agriculture department reported that the speed of top soil that covered the prairies and plains was down to two feet. that soil is still going into the gulf of mexico. we also know that the aquifers in arizona, california and under the great plains are dropping. they are sinking. this keeps up, the present rate, the soil and the water will be tapped out in two generations. it will be gone. now, as to endless warfare, what do we do about the pentagon's drain on the civilian economy, r&d and job creation, and what do we do for brave young men, among whom was one of my two best childhood friends, brave young men and brave young women sent abroad to fight and die for the sake of what i'll politely call an official story? thank you. and i have a present for you, if you care to read it sometime. >> thank you. ok, last question right here, sir. >> my name is malcolm bennett. i'm -- i would love to see on the ballot the next inheritor of norman thomas' program. i think we're entrenched in 19th century thinking about the economy. nothing seems to improve. it just sits there. and people seem to be satisfied. people i tried to engage in political conversation look panic-stricken, they just don't want to get into it. waste it going to take for somebody on the left? >> people are not satisfied, and that's just not correct. people are frustrated, angry, people may not know how to go forward. and what i have to say to karl rove and the koch brothers, they have done an amazingly good job in dividing people up, in dividing people up. among the gun issue and the abortion issue, and the gay issue, that's what they do. our job is to do exactly the opposite, to bring people together. plautsplause -- [applause] i'm getting the boot here. no. et me just conclude. i just want to thank all of you for coming out on this beautiful day. around here we haven't had that many beautiful days. and what you're doing -- and i want that thank st. anselm's for doing it as well. this is what american democracy is supposed to be about. so let's do this all over the country. let's get millions of people out talking about the real issues facing america. and when we educate and organize, we're going to change this country. thank you so much for being here today. [applause] >> we'd like to thank you for being here. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next, "q&a" with oklahoma senator tom coburn. after that, david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons. then another chance to see vermont senator bernie sanders at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. >> c-span, for 35 years, bringing public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. . . >> senator coburn announced to retire at the end of next year. >> time we could borrow money against the future of our kids. it's time we quit mortgaging their future. it's time we start taking responsibility for the actions of the federal government. >> does that happen? >> no. >> why not? >> it's human nature. if you're going to do that, if

Fayetteville council votes down proposal to move earmarked park funds to housing task force

Council delays decision on new housing project near university

Fayetteville council keeps stormwater fee work moving but tables student complex rezoning, task force earmark

FAYETTEVILLE -- The City Council on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for staff to develop a stormwater utility fee but held separate proposals to rezone a downtown block for student housing and earmark $1 million for a housing task force.

Fayetteville council keeps stormwater fee work moving but tables student complex rezoning, task force earmark | The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

FAYETTEVILLE -- The City Council on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for staff to develop a stormwater utility fee but held separate proposals to rezone a downtown block for student housing and earmark $1 million for a housing task force.